The NAACP doesn’t want people who march with them to vote? Da fuq?
And the NAACP isn’t the government.
Seems prudent to me. When engaging in a protest march there is a non-zero chance that you are going to be arrested. In that case, having a photo ID on you will save a lot of aggravation. However, given the nature of the protest people may see leaving their IDs at home a act of solidarity. So having a memo that encouraging those that have IDs to bring them makes sense.
Also civil rights protests have more impact if you can get members of a non-effected group to join the protest. If a gay right’s march is composed entirely of homosexuals than it can be just written off as just selfishness of a vocal minority. But if you can get a large number of “straight but not narrow” to participate it will demonstrate that there is a larger issue at stake. So having people who actually have IDs at the march may serve the same purpose.
In order to find out the actual motivation for that suggestion you will have to ask the NAACP organizer who put it out. In any case there doesn’t seem to be anything saying that those without IDs will be prevented from joining the march, so claiming its just as bad as requiring IDs to vote is false equivalence.
In fact here we go.
and I only had to page through 8 pages of google searches of right wingers claiming IDs were being required to march in order to find it.
It’s kind of awe-inspiring if you don’t think about how stupid it is. I don’t think I’ve ever had to go that deep in a Google search to find a neutral cite.
SRMOTD
Stupid Republican Misinformation Of The Day
SRFBLOTD
Stupid Republican Fucking Blatant Lie Of The Day
Exactly. “Casting a vote” is way more important than “attending a protest”.
If “carrying ID” is “suggested” for one, then clearly, it should be more than suggested for the other.
But I do like the level of insane rationalization you had to go through to justify unjustifiable…
The equivalent would be a MADD (mothers against drunk driving) gathering, where it’s suggested to attendees that they show up to meeting drunk.
Well, Mr. Barber lied, of course.
Here’s the actual instructions:
http://i.imgur.com/yrcoEEz.jpg
DO bring photo identification.
Now, we can argue about the language, but “DO bring photo identification” is a lot closer to “requirement” than “suggestion”.
To repeat the analogy, imagine the MADD meeting, where participants are told beforehand by the organizers:
DO get drunk out of your mind.
Once the public finds out about that and the shit hits the fan, justify the drunkeness at MADD meeting by claiming “well, we don’t require people to get wasted at our meetings. It’s just suggested that they do”.
Then sit back and enjoy the irony.
“Do” bring id is a suggestion. “Must” bring id is a requirement.
Easy.
Not tricky, or difficult. Easy.
Easy. Piece of cake.
What a sad little man you are, Newbie.
You know, you have to bring photo ID with you to NAACP meetings to prove you are black. One of those special driver’s licenses that they can have but they get mad if you have one. Cops have to check black guys and make sure they got theirs, and if they do, they have to let them go. NAACP got a law passed to force the cops to check, nobody but black people get the special license.
Not everybody knows about that. They keep it quiet. Go ahead and ask, bet you they lie about it, say there is no such thing. They could use them for voter ID, but they won’t, because then they can’t bitch about how the election got stolen.
It is not a requirement unless everyone’s ID is to be checked before the march starts, and those without excluded. There is nothing to indicate or imply that. It is simply that bringing ID to such an event is a good idea for practical reasons unrelated to voting requirements and already covered upthread.
:rolleyes: No. That is not an analogy.
It is not the position of the NAACP that having a drivers license is bad. They recognize that they are useful. They just don’t feel that they should be mandatory to vote. This suggestion is no more hypocritical than a rally in favor of school lunches, suggesting that it will be a long day and participants should bring a lunch.
As far as do means must, consider the following list of hiking Do’s and Don’ts
Certainly you don’t think that the organizers of these trips will send you home if you haven’t eaten breakfast or forgot your camera.
Pidril Pidrilych, you seem desperate to paint the NAACP as hypocritical. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are right and they are hypocritical regarding photo IDs. How would that weaken the argument against ID laws? The hypocrisy or lack of hypocrisy of one group has nothing to do with the facts of an issue. What you’re doing is akin to what climate change denialists are doing when they think they can win the argument by trashing Al Gore. It’s a distraction; a side issue that has nothing to do with the real issue and that adds nothing of value to the conversation. If you want to discuss whether or not the NAACP are hypocrites then maybe you should start your own thread about that. That is not what this thread is about.
Well, OK, if the NAACP aren’t a bunch of hypocrites like Al Gore, how come its so cold when its supposed to be warming!?! Answer me that, smarty pants!
Further, it’s my opinion that most liberals aren’t even against using IDs to vote. They’re against the partisan way in which the rules were created to attempt to dissuade people from voting. If an honest effort was made to get ID to everyone, I think very few people would have issues with it.
A free national ID card would be the most practical solution – but, there are those who would have issues with that, for completely different reasons.
I agree, but I wasn’t even going that far. Just making sure everyone had a state ID would be sufficient.
No, it wouldn’t, because if you’ve been paying any attention at all to this thread and/or to the news, you will know that we can’t count on every state government to cooperate in anything that might make voting easier.
That was my point. It’s not that we’re opposed to using ID, it’s the method in which it’s being done. If the states actually may a good faith effort, there wouldn’t be an issue.
As it stands, though, the states passing these laws are actively trying to make it as hard as possible to vote for those groups most likely to not support them. Thus, there’s a problem.