Everything that goes in comes out mangled.
People remember what I say? I’m gonna have to be more careful. Or follow the advice of the Master Clemens: “If you always tell the truth, you don’t have to remember as much.”
But there’s another element here, another hidden upside. The Pubbies tend to be the enemies of Progress, true enough, but our truest enemy is the Apathy Party, the party of give up, don’t try, you can’t win. Many of our minority citizens are in the grip of the Apathy Party, they’ve grown numb to the insults, they cannot feel a sense of connection.
Now, like many others, both left and right, I have a bad case of Orwellphobia, reflected in my suspicion about such things as national ID cards. But that ship has sailed, that one is over, if the government (or Citigroup, for that matter) wants to know, they are going to know. And so it went. Any day now, I expect a call from my bank advising me that me prostate is mite swollen, maybe check into that…
But a voter ID, properly approached, properly enacted, has a lot of potential upside. That connection, first and foremost, that sense that one is important enough to make the effort, one matters, one counts, because everybody does.
Why not make the voter ID card valid identification for most general purposes involving the citizen interacting with the government? The policeman cannot tell a Michael Jordan from a Herman Cain, because, really, they all look so much alike, and a guy who looks like Herman Cain committed a robbery across town…flip out your voter ID that says you are Joe Jones, thank you sir, have a nice day…
You’re Hispanic looking, stopped for a traffic infraction, and they think maybe you might have some things to discuss with La Migra. Out comes the card, away goes the hassle.
The voter ID thing, done with malign intent, stinks like week old catfish. But done right, it has a great deal of potential benefit.
Great Idea! Too bad no one had mentioned this earlier in this thread…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15513795&postcount=61
Bricker wants to reboot the argument, going back to his original assertion as if this whole painful thread never happened.
Rather than re-litigate the whole thing, pursuing each element of his fantasy again (remember the sleeper Nordic fraudulent voter who has been here since 1970?), I thought I’d just come here to let him know exactly what a deceitful little bitch he is.
I think he’s just upset because his last bastion - the “it’s legal, neener neener” defense is coming crashing down in multiple jurisdictions.
Did you really leave this thread thinking you proved something? In fact, you simply hand-waved away my counter example and subsequently pretended it didn’t exist.
I don’t know why you imagined I would acquiesce in your self-imposed fantasy amnesia.
With no voter ID, it is essentially impossible to develop evidence to secure a conviction for an non-citizen who votes anyway.
I provided that as a specific counter example. You didn’t rebut it. You stuck your fingers in your ears and pretended you never heard it.
Pennsylvania? Did the Penn Supremes overturn the law? No. Will the Penn courts overturn it? I say they won’t, and you seem to think they will.
Let’s bet on it, so there can be some consequence for you being wrong.
Oh, wait – I bet now we’ll discover your deep abiding pious rejection of gambling.
This is why it is not worth engaging **ShitBricker[b/]. I spent a lot of time reviewing State of Virginia registration documents, the history of the Social Security Administration and changes in its requirements for identification over time, cites on voter fraud investigations, information regarding the one guy with schizophrenia in Florida that he was so excited about, and so on.
I did this to systematically rebut each of his iteratively more arcane and pathetic assertions. He was ultimately left with no argumentation but to say, "Well, so what. It’s been enacted into law, so suck it. "
Now, just a month or so later, he can with a figuratively straight face say that I hand-waved away one assertion and thus proved nothing.
You are a deceitful, despicable, worthless piece of shit, ShitBricker.
Lol, you’re such a bitch, Bricker.
Hilarious, but NSFW language.
If you want fair, move to Canada.
No photo - no voto
Get a concealed carry permit for Nana.
And the counter example you conceded a couple of posts above has already vanished from your memory?
Buh… buh… but… you do it toooooooooo…
A call… vapid and shrill, wafting from the moors. Can it be?
The Hound of the Brickervilles?
Conceded? What are you smoking? I guess desperate times call for desperate bullshit. You know you don’t have to be a whore for the Republicans. You must just like it. Again, no crying in the shower for shitbricker.
If you’re still going on about Sven who got his SSN circa 1970, that’s just terribly pathetic. A completely unrealistic sexagenarian boogeyman vote fraudster is your best line of attack?
Explain to me how your preferred voter ID method will prevent your hypothetical guy from voting.
Better yet, eat a bag of shit. I don’t care because I’m not desperate.
If you have this much disdain for basically every single person here (and there’ve been conservatives as well as liberals criticizing your approach)…
… why do you spend your time here?
And this just in, for anybody who didn’t already know…
http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-look-voter-fraud-little-172327169--election.html
Republicans look for voter fraud, find little
Very, very little.
The franchise is the MOST important component of a democracy. Its the only thing that may not be remediable through an election. Everything else is.
My neice read the Hunger Games and Robin Hood and started becoming very anti-government. I pointed out that the folks in both those stories didn’t have the vote. Those stories would make no sense if people had the right to vote.
The criticism I leveled does not come close to applying to everyone here.
To pick a shining example, Richard Parker is one of many liberal posters who doesn’t agree with me on much, but doesn’t demonize the opposition. Ther are plenty of others.
Why am I here? Because I am convinced that I want my ideas to withstand rigorous challenge. Why aren’t you at a conservative board, instead of spending your time where everyone tell you how right you are?
From your link:
A tiny percentage, yes.
But in 2000, Florida’s electoral votes went to Bush by 537 votes.
What’s THAT percentage?
We mathtards have feelings too, you know, and we don’t appreciate this sort of public taunting of our …challenges.
You have a rational argument, Bricker, but not a reasonable one. You stubbornly insist that if an atom of fact exists re “voter fraud”, these laws can be justified. Doesn’t matter how small, if so much as a butterfly’s eyelash of fact exists, case closed, “valid neutral justification”. its the kind of argument that is sophisticated and assertive in a dorm room, perhaps, but it doesn’t pretend to deserve serious adult consideration.
Politics, and civics, and rights are almost never a purely binary thing, people are too various and perverse. If you base your justification on whether or not something exists rather than whether that something is significant, you set the bar far too low.
Worse, you drape this tattered negligee of legitimacy over a corrupt and venal action on the part of Republicans. Which you have stipulated is true, you might want to quibble over how many.
Is it a matter of principle, then, derived from your devotion to the strict principles of democracy? That any voter fraud at all, however miniscule, if some form of public heresy, anathema? In which case, your relative silence about the miscreants who fashioned this monstrosity is hard to square.
And if its a practical matter, a matter of a certain number of “bad” votes relative to "good"votes? Well, then, wouldn’t you be compelled by that reasoning to give more weight to the prospect of voter suppression? Even if the more alarming numbers are not true, even exaggerated, they outweigh the number if genuine fraud by…whole bunches! Wait a second, I can look it up and fake my way…ah, here it is!..by orders of magnitude.
A rational argument, but not a reasonable one.
I thought that Bricker had already conceded that this was not about finding actual cases of fraud, but was most likely simply a way to remove the voting rights from people who were most likely to vote for the Democratic party? And that this was just fine (disenfranchising voters who are really legally entitled to vote) as long as it is done legally?
So if it’s legal, its fine and dandy.