Not to mention, by the way, this spinoff thread which you ignored entirely.
No, you really don’t.
I think abortion is a great evil, and it’s legal.
But I recognize my own personal standards do not control the law. So while I personally believe that abortion is highly damaging to the fabric of society, I do nt demand others accept my view.
Correct. I don’t believe you.
What infraction? Voter ID is massively popular. You and your band of Lefty Leftersons are a tiny minority. There’s no infraction.
But I have responded to those points already. There’s no requirement that I continue to repeat the stands I’ve taken.
Oh? And how many times have you trotted out that sorry old sawhorse about how popular voter ID laws are? Fifty?
Fix the problems with this current mess o’ shit, and it would be popular with most of us, few of us have any objection to voter ID, as such. Did you notice anything about our real argument, that using voter ID laws to create an undeserved partisan advantage is wrong? We’ve repeated our stance on that any number of times, to no effect, apparently.
Like that Rhode Island legislation you so gleefully thrust in our faces, being produced by a Democratic (gasp!) legislature. It appears you were surprised to hear that their program didn’t contain any of the noxious elements that we object to, that they are determined to take their time, do it the right way. You didn’t know that when you gloated about it? Did you just see that nugget on a site that offers you pre-digested talking points, and neglect to actually find out anything about it?
You repeat your stances all the time, Counselor. And they are demolished. You wait a little while, presumably hoping that we will forget, and then trot them back out again.
Find me a Republican state legislator who agrees with you and us, that these laws are motivated by partisan opportunism, and are blight and a shame. Find me that guy, saying “Yes, we could do this, but we shouldn’t, it would be wrong, thats not the way an honest conservative behaves…”
I would like to have an honest conservative to point to, to restore my flickering faith in my opponent’s integrity. Thought we had such, here on the boards, but it appears I was mistaken. Rather a pity, that.
I respected Barry Goldwater, still do. Think he was terribly wrong about civil rights legislation, but i respected his reasoning. Now, who have we got? Romney? Newt Gangrene? Rick Sanctorum?
You?
By they way, about that Rhode Island voter id law? Interesting news, appears to be going rather well…
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/rhode-island-primary-tests-new-voter-id-law/
That’s not logical at all. Even if I am misguided, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong.
In any case, keep fucking that chicken, you amoral, fake-Christian scumbag.
What an odd response. There’s no REQUIREMENT that you do anything on the SDMB, ever. But unless you suspect of either being stupid or arguing in bad faith, I obviously was continuing to ask questions, suggesting that there are parts of what you already said that I want further clarification about, that there are related issues that I’m curious to hear your thoughts on, or both.
If nothing else, it’s clearly impolite to just stop responding in what had previously been an interesting and at least vaguely productive exchange of thoughts.
I found the signal-to-noise ratio distracting. Not your fault. It’s like trying to hear the snap count when you’re the offensive lineman in a hostile stadium.
Catholics don’t vote for their own leader. A very small select group does it for them. Jesus hasn’t show up to object to that practice.
And not any point of being pro-democracy. You’re making a fine case for saying those people shoving Jews into ovens were not to blame for their actions. Jesus didn’t show up to object to those actions, either btw.
I still think that limos should be hired to deliver people to the polling stations. Just in case the $.50 bus ride is too disenfranchising for someone to vote.
That’s often the case with legislation that affirms the rights of 90% even as it disenfranchises 10%.
I think your “tiny minority” would not meet many people’s idea of what a tiny minority is.
I doubt very much if people would be as supportive if they actually knew how often voter fraud actually occurred. That knowledge would also invalidate the “voter confidence” asserted theory which I don’t even think you believe.
As for the Penn Supremes: turns out the decision won’t be made for at least a week, maybe two. The case made for the state was literally laughable (yes, people in the courtroom laughed). It came down to “we need to implement this law IMMEDIATELY, even though it will take about two years to get the documents it demands to everyone who needs them, BECAUSE OF a problem which everone agrees DOES NOT EXIST, but we think it MIGHT smoeday, just like we think pink unicorns might fly out my butt someday.”
Gee, really?
That sure seems like a weak case, what with the laughing and all.
I bet it didn’t come down to that, like you said. I bet some other points were made. I bet they didn’t even mention pink unicorns. I bet you made that part up.
There’s just no fooling you is there? Mind like a steel trap, I say.
My point is that a review like that is classic poisioning the well. If the Pennsylvania Supremes come back and uphold the law, how does one reconcile that action with “literally laughable (yes, people in the courtroom laughed),” and “pink unicorns might fly out my butt someday?”
It’s idiotic. Those were not the arguments used, and the lame-brains that read this will think that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were a bunch of partisan dunces, when in fact all that happened is that the Court reached a reaonable conclusion that differed from the wishes of some observers.
If the Court strikes down the law, you won’t see me screaming about unicorns and anal expulsion thereof. I’ll simply accept that they read the law of Pennaylvania differently than I do, and, since it’s there job and not mine to read the law of Pennsylavania and decide what it means, that’s the end of the issue.
But you Lefty Lefterson nutcases… no, no. There can never be reasonable disagreement. Everyone on your side is a saintly presence; the opposing side are evil, hulking idiots barely bale to amass the brain power necesssry to grunt.
Of course there are conservatives that aren’t evil, hulking idiots.
Those people don’t pass laws that make it harder for millions of people across the nation to vote, so they can fight a problem that doesn’t exist and that just happens to give them partisan advantage.
There are good conservatives. You’re not one of them, of course. But they exist.
None of this has anything to do with the stupid and evil policy you’re championing.
Rusted shut, regrettably.
Pals and gals, I propose a course of action. If the Goddess shall cease to avert Her eyes, and the Dems hold power in the various state legislatures, I propose a generous program of healing and mutual comity. A massive voter registration drive, well funded, with the aim of putting rock-solid voter ID in the hands of any citizen who so much as nods his/her head. Every rural village, every inner city neighborhood, proactive as a sumbitch, registering like a motherfuck!
Cut off voter fraud’s head, stuff the mouth with garlic, burn its heart, and bury in at the crossroads. Let its name be removed from all the pylons and monuments, let it ne’er be spoken again! I suppose it is possible that this might have some partisan result, it has not escaped my attention that such an effort might tilt the field leftish. But sometimes sacrifices must be made as stern duty demands! Voter confidence demands it, and we can but obey!
Behold, the sweetness of karma.
Bricker, I used colorful language because the approximately five hundred attempts in this thread to state the same facts to you in drier terms have had no effect on your stance.
Elucidator, thanks for essentially expanding on a post you offered several weeks ago, about how progressives (and simply anyone who cares about fair elections) should see this as an opportunity, to do the hard work to meet any arbitrary barriers the Brickers of the world might erect. You wrote that we shouldn’t be too dejected if they win this round (i.e., if they swing a few races their way in this manner in Nov 2012), because at least we’ll win the next round, even playing by their rules. Well, I think that’s good to keep in mind, and does put things in a longer perspective.
Its a bit like fondling, except the grip is a little firmer, and we don’t let go. Maybe just a little squeeze, every now and then. To encourage the others…