Isn’t this the very definition of an ad hominem?
You bring this kinda stuff up and it derails the conversation and I cannot get answers to my reasonable, if stupid, questions.
First off, my link does not go to an earlier instance of me quoting you. You are incorrect. My link goes to your post, isolated, from that thread. The entire quote box is a link, that’s why it has a solid black line surrounding it (and as you mention the word Quote is a blue link).
Allow me to help you with the sequence since you’ve decided that pretending outrage over my link is the best defense for your indefensible lack of human empathy.
What I did was search for the message on google. When I found it I went to the post in question. I didn’t want to back out of the reply window I already had which I’d have to do if I used the quick quote button. Although I could have refreshed the page I suppose, oh the shame!
I cut and pasted your quote into my reply. Then I constructed quote boxes around your quote and linked the specific post in url boxes around the quote box.
Following so far? Good. I knew you could do it. Now when you click on the link you go to your specific post instead of to the thread inline. I did that because the post itself was buried in thousands.
I also thought that the context didn’t matter, because you specifically said it in answer to a question. You weren’t making some larger point. You just accidentally told the truth. That you’re a worthless person and Jesus, if he existed, would undoubtedly personally see to it that you burn in hell forever.
But I digress.
If you wanted the context, I’ll share with you a secret. In the upper right corner of the post, it shows a link to the thread proper. It looks like this: Thread: Dispelling US Health Care Myths: Part 1.
If someone wanted context, they could click on that and be teleported via the magic of the intarwebs to the thread in question.
But all of this is a pathetic attempt for you to deflect attention from your degenerate approximation of morals, so I suppose I’m only playing into your hands.
Herp Derp.
Oh it’s most certainly ad hominem.
But if I may crib some Law & Order, “It goes to credibility, your honor.” 
I am sorry that I derailed the thread. I will lay off now.
You omitted to mention what word you would consider more appropriate. If people are being dissuaded from voting, that is indeed a form of disenfranchisement.
Even he has to acknowledge that the Constitution flatly forbids poll taxes. Opinion is not a factor in that point, and there is no point in you bringing it up.
Who said that? :dubious:
And there is a fine example of why there is a problem in the real worldwith the ID law, as well as the fact that there is no problem in the real world that it addresses. Its partisan origins and applications are clear to all, as you yourself point out with that example. What, do you think it’s an exception? Why?
Bricker, since you mention him, has been doing his level best to argue against that. And he’s certainly not alone; the party to which he provides his absolute fealty has made it part of its agenda. Where is that “general consensus” you speak of?
You already did that yourself - Wisconsin, for example.
As the dear Ann Landers was fond of saying, “Wake up and smell the coffee.”
I was not the one saying it was an exaggeration. Elucidator was. He stated it was a minor semantic error. As I was replying to his comment, I shall leave it up to him to clarify what he felt they meant. If others feel they think the term appropriate, the discussion shall proceed along those lines.
Except to clarify a portion of the discussion that everyone seemed to be in agreement about which was my intent.
This would be a small amount of hyperbole on my part. Regardless there have been those treating the acquisition of an ID as if it were an unfair difficulty which I feel is inaccurate.
I would say it is an exception because, as far as I have seen though I am far from infallible, this behavior has not spread to other states and I’ve only seen the one example from Wisconsin. There are memos and the like indicating a possible widespread problem but I’ve seen no other examples and am really not comfortable spreading what is thus far a local problem to a national level.
Simply put, you’re wrong. He’s stated in this thread that he believes that the measures are partisan and that everyone has the right to vote. As far as absolute fealty goes, that’s likely a bit of hyperbole on your part. That or you’ve finally found that copy of the video of Bricker sacrificing the baby to the cold dead heart of Dick Cheney that you’ve been searching for for so long now.
As far as the general consensus goes, I was referring to this thread.
One example in one state does not apply to all fifty. I shouldn’t have to explain why.
If this is so painfully obvious to you, perchance you would be so kind as to make it as obvious to those of us not fortunate enough to have your knowledge. If getting a photo ID is such a burden, how is it that 89% of americans have managed to do so? If it isn’t, then how is it going to disenfranchise voters? Do you believe that the full 11% without photo ID is going to become disenfrancised despite the fact that these laws have not been passed nationwide as of yet? Answer as many as you like and if there is more information you feel appropriate, feel free to provide it.
And you took that at face value?
So do you or do you not think disenfranchisement is an appropriate word?
To the extent it exists, which is non-negligible, it is then a real problem. Glad you agree.
And yet he *supports *the kind of obstructions we have been discussing here - he simply denies that that’s what they are.
Not in this case, and not in any other that you could point out.
One example of the far-fewer-than-fifty that have implemented such a law recently, and have Republican operatives in charge of implementing it. Yes, you *should *have to explain why real evidence doesn’t matter. **Bricker **does a much better job of handwaving than you do.
You provided the proof yourself. :rolleyes:
How is it that the rest have not? How is it that there is no burden at all? How is it that the requirement is even being brought up? What real problem has been identified that it solves? How about answering a question honestly instead of dismissing each one that you find inconvenient? :rolleyes:
Time to cut the shit, amigo.
How is it not disenfranchisement not to be able to afford gasoline, bus or taxi fare to get to the polls?
Yep. Until I hear otherwise from him.
I think the ID requirement at best would be the straw that broke the camels back for some. I’d prefer to worry over the larger reasons why people would be feeling that way about voting. As I stated farther back in the thread, nearly half the population already doesn’t vote. I’d guess that a large chunk of the 11% without ID already fits into that category anyways.
Non-negligible but not nationwide. I’ve seen reports of some memos and one video. That’s awful, but not a crisis of nationwide proportion and not proof of malfeasance any farther than Wisconsin.
If you view a photo ID requirement as an obstruction than yes it appears he does. In that same sense, I would as well. I’ve seen little proof that such requirements are harmful obstructions.
I am not handwaving. Out of fifty states, we have evidence of one taking the ID requirement farther in an effort to discourage voters. That’s not a trend. That’s not a concern. That’s proof that Wisconsin has problems. Not the country. When other states are proven to have taken similar measures, I will certainly change my views.
I disagree. You can use the rolleyes smiley as much as you want, but it won’t turn one state into an epidemic.
I’ve answered those questions, though the thread is a bit crowded so you may have missed them.
Why don’t 11% have photo ID? No clue. Not even sure I can speculate. Now if you would answer my question as to the difficulty of something 89% can manange just fine.
I never said it was no burden. Going to the DMV is a pain. I simply don’t feel it is an unfair burden and have yet to be convinced otherwise by the statements in this thread to date. I am welcome to further information if you have any.
I feel it is being brought up for partisan reasons. I just can’t see why. Voter fraud is not a problem that needs to be addressed. I’m just not sure what they are trying to accomplish. The number of likely voters who would be affected by this has to be remarkably small. Yes it is a bad thing that any voters would be affected, but their plan can be foiled by entirely simply means. Simply put, it’s a dumb fucking idea and a waste of time.
I feel I’ve not dismissed any questions that have been posed. You can correct me if I’m wrong by posting more questions. Better yet, you can answer some that I’ve posed to you.
:dubious:
I rise to quibble, sir. A minor point, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…
Bricker speaks, and most likely thinks, in lawyerese. He is far more interested in pointing out where you are wrong than in defending the indefensible. Its why he loves to take the argument away from right/wrong, and to legal/illegal. Usually, this takes the form of a semantic nitpick, and it doesn’t matter so much that it is relevant, it isn’t, but he can make a case that you are wrong. About something.
And if you are fool enough to take the bait, he’ll drag you through ten pages of verbal jiu-jitsu, until you get so frustrated you want to reach into the monitor and grab him by the hair and slam his face into the desk again and again and…sorry. Did that to me about twenty times before I caught on. I’m quick.
Anyway, if you were to carefully comb through every word, you most likely wouldn’t find a statement of approval. Even a moment of candor, as I recognized. He isn’t interested in proving they were right, he is interested in proving you are wrong. About something. Anything.
And, of course, the Devil is in the details, and his lawyer is right there with him.
If the status quo were that everyone could vote without needing access to a car (either there were so many polling locations that everyone could walk to one in 2 minutes, or maybe people came door to door to collect ballots like the census, or something), and then someone proposed changing it so that suddenly having a car would make voting much much easier than not having a car (even if it wasn’t IMPOSSIBLE without a car), and particularly if the party proposing that was demographically more likely to be popular among car-owners; then I would view that as an act of disenfranchisement.
For instance, he has studiously avoided responding to my post #411. Hint hint.
There is no burden in any reasonable sense. You have to go places and wait in line and pay some money…you know, kind of like going to the grocery store.
As for why they have not, probably because for whatever reason they prefer to be invisible to the authorities.
Wow. A reasonable person who realizes that a quote out of context is not to be accepted at face value! Kudos to you!
I gave the context. I linked to the post and the thread. Maybe you could take a look and see for yourself?
I gave up pages ago.
I did. If you are trying to pass that off as showing the context, you are not being very honest.
Did you notice that you can click on the upper right of the post and go straight to the thread and find that post in context? Did you notice that?
It’s hardly my fault you don’t understand how to click on links.
I’m not sure what you would have had me do. Should I have copied the entire thread? :rolleyes:
Nice insinuation there, Starkers! Sure hope you washed your hands after you typed that.
Just speakin’ truth to bullshit, luci. Just speakin’ truth to bullshit.