Pro Abortion - Check
Atheist - Check
Pro Gay Marriage - Check
Pro Education (should be free until first degree or trade school completed) - Check
Pro support for those who need help between jobs or can’t physically or mentally work - Check
Pro drug legalization (all drugs, not just weed) - Check
Pro assisted suicide (for everyone for any reason - waiting period applies) - Check
So, why don’t I classify myself as a liberal? The difference being is that I’m also pro responsibility which seems to be sorely lacking for people on the left.
Do what you want, but take responsibility for foreseeable consequences. If you choose to use that education to take advanced flower arranging and can’t get a job, then it sucks to be you, but we shouldn’t have to support you indefinitely until you ‘find’ yourself. Inject battery acid into your veins for all I care, but if it affects your judgement then you better not get into a car and drive down the road. And if there is a new voting requirement then don’t expect the rest of the world to stop because you can’t figure out or arrange to get an ID within a two or four year period.
I see. So, we may be assured that you have thoroughly researched this question in the various and sundry states? And have determined, to your complete satisfaction, that in every instance wherein voter ID was to be required, that everyone who failed to meet the criteria were entirely the victims of their own personal failings?
I was under the impression that some of these laws were crafted with the intent of enforcing them rather soon, like the next election. Indeed, most of them. So your “two to four years” comment is somewhat confusing. Can you offer us some support for this extraordinary statement?
That would be cite for sore eyes. You got, you bring. You got? I think not.
What does "it sucks to be you mean on a policy/societal level? To a large extent, liberal programs are based on benefits to society as a whole. What relevance does “it sucks to be you” have from that perspective?
What if reducing the number of desperate and unhappy people around you – regardless of whose fault it is – creates a safer, more prosperous society for everyone to live in? At what point do jails and armed security guards set up to maintain the line of blame become too costly to maintain?
How many liberals have come out in favor of impaired operation of dangerous equipment?
So people who don’t have adequate transportation or can’t get time off work or don’t have anyone to leave the kids with or are isolated because of poverty or from inadequate sources of information (can’t afford internet) – their problem is really that they aren’t responsible enough or that they are stupid?
You know that these are exact parallels to the Jim Crow era – restricting registrations to times and places that make it essentially impossible for a large number of poor people to manage the logistics.
People who have little contact with the poor seem to think that life is easy – they get to sit back and collect benefits. When in reality they are monitored and hectored and held accountable in so many ways that most “responsible” people would find intolerable. They are subject to many more rules than we are, rules that make it easy for them to lose what they have, rules that restrict their options to improve their situations, all in the name of ensuring that some ultimately insignificant number of freeloaders aren’t getting away with something.
Sigh. And why are you allowing this to be set at the state level? Take the issue away from the Republicans and beat them at their own game. Create a universal ID, which would actually benefit people, and be done with it. Or continue to whinge about it.
And you have a plan on how this might be accomplished before the next election? Or maybe you think the Republicans will see the light, and defer enforcement until universal ID can be enacted?
Go for it. Do let us know, won’t you?
(Have you thought about how the tea party goons will react to your big gummint ID plan? How about suggesting tattoos on the forehead, might as well go big!)
I could figure out a plan that would take months to implement (once all the parts are ordered, etc) given enough money. The technology should be relatively easy. The monkeys that run your country would push it out to years if ever and balloon the figure to 100 times the actual cost.
Well, see there is your problem. You can’t seem to get enough votes under the existing system to neutralize the numbskull types.
There’s hyperbole, and then there’s hyperbole. The Udall amendment completely repeals the 1st amendment’s protections for political speech when it matters most, during elections. Congress would have as much power to regulate political speech during election campaigns as they do to regulate interstate commerce.
So okay, the protections for freedom of religion, assembly, and speech not having to do with politics during election campaigns would still be there. Problem is, I consider, and I think the founders considered, the 1st amendment’s primary purpose to be to protect political speech. I think it’s entirely fair to say that the Udall amendment at minimum guts the 1st amendment.
I believed that too when it was just motor voter. Then came early voting and same day registration, added to a party that is already much more reliant on voter registration drives and GOTV efforts than the Republican Party is. People can honestly believe their rationalizations, but they are still rationalizations. Clearly they are trying to change the system until it achieves the “right” result, which would be equivalent turnout rates. Everything has to be fair, and equal, even if the fingers continually have to be put on the scales, the field constantly tilted in this or that direction, to make it fair. Since their efforts thus far have not achieved the result of increasing Democratic turnout, more must be done. A New Republic writer recently called for increasing House terms to four years, ostensibly to reduce their need to always be campaigning. Yeah, and FDR wanted to increase the size of the court to reduce its workload.
I have read that, and I’ve made that point myself. Nevertheless, voters should have some idea of what they want aside from “I get a check in the mail every month and I want to keep it”, or “Everyone tells me to vote for this party so I will”. The voting base should be engaged. For now, I’ll take knowing when election day is and knowing where their polling place is and how to fill out a ballot. When we’re not talking about partisan politics, almost everyone agrees that an informed voter base is better for democracy than an uninformed voter base. Yanking the unmotivated out of bed, explaining to them it’s election day, driving them down to the polls, and them Christmas-treeing their ballot(or just voting the way they think they’re supposed to because of their racial, sexual, or religious identity), does not help democracy in any way. There’s a reason we don’t have mandatory voting, and it’s not out of a concern for personal freedom(voting could be considered equivalent to jury duty or paying taxes, much more arduous undertakings). We don’t have mandatory voting because votes only have value if people cast them of their own free will motivated by nothing more than their sense of civic duty. Not a knock on their door from some activist.
Definitely and I accept your criticism. I chose to go there because I’m a bit fed up with Democrats claiming rights that aren’t even in the Constitution as sacred, while rights that are actually written down are subject to regulation as they see fit.
YOu have cited chapter and verse on how voter ID is completely legal when done right, and they just keep on prattling on about rights that only exist in their minds, again while ignoring rights that are actually written in the Supreme Law of our Land.
And BTW, I agree with them that you SHOULD call me out if you see stuff that doesn’t make sense to you or seems extreme.
ALthough I understand why you’d have better ways to spend your time given that about three dozen people are usually ganging up on me at any one time(and ganging up on you as well). They want you to make time for me, but somehow make very little time to correct each other’s factual misstatements or partisan hyperbole.
You sound like a garden-variety libertarian to me. Let people do what they want, then to hell with them. I’m all right, Jack! You guys couldn’t run a suburban neighborhood, much less a modern city.
[ul]
[li]a government establishment of religion[/li][li]prohibiting the free exercise of religion[/li][li]freedom of speech[/li][li]freedom of the press[/li][li]the right of the people peaceably to assemble[/li][li]the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances[/li][/ul]
The Udall proposal would affect freedom of the press for a fraction of the time. Granted, it’s an important fraction, but measured against the entire amendment, it’s hardly “the guts,” especially when you remember that the Court has already approved limits such as size of donations to be made to individuals.
I certainly understand the point of view of a First Amendment absolutist, but there’s value in precision as opposed to hyperbole.
In my view, anyway.
This is an interesting mirror image of the complaint I often field from the left about Voter ID. “Look at the overall pattern!” they cry. “Look at the lack of voter machines in poor neighborhoods, and the fact that early voting is also being curtailed!” And my response is: as long as the measure in question is adequately supported on its own grounds, I won’t seek to reverse it merely because some of its designers have less than admirable motives. Does Voter ID make independent sense? Yes, say I.
By the same token, the proposals you mention make independent sense. Now, would the Democrats be pushing for them so hard if they did not help the Democrats? Of course not. But that simply means that these are ideas consistent with the general views of Democrats anyway, so they get a two-fer: they can be internally consistent and still support measures which help them.
Yes, your point is valid: but in the realm of the practical, any scheme that seeks to limit the franchise has the potential of being turned into a scheme to advance a given party’s interest. Self-preservation, if nothing else, suggests that it’s better to leave the comments about engaged voters as aspirational ends rather than actual limits.
Yes. But I urge you to make the effort to do a few things:
[ul]
[li]Avoid hyperbole – it just poisons the discussion[/li][li]Make a strong effort to understand the argument the opponent is making[/li][li]make a stronger effort to respond to it[/li][/ul]
Like I said, I am by no means immune to the problem – sometimes in an argument taking my own advice is difficult. But there are rational opponents on the other side. Talking to them as above usually exposes an argument’s weak points – on both sides. The overwhelming temptation is to focus on the opposition’s most foolish attacks and premises, scoring the easy victory while not really advancing. I do that a lot…but I’m trying real hard to catch myself before I do it.
And, even if a voter ID law is found unconstitutional, a new law can always be passed that corrects the constitutional defects. Most states have some kind of ID requirement.
Libertarians are for free education, health care, and support for those that need it? Well i guess i am one then. Or did you even bother to actually read my post, but yet managed to see the word ‘responsibility’ and freaked out?
Either you don’t understand the concept of a constitution, or you’re ignoring (or merely ignorant) what the various relevant court rulings say about what the problem is.
Congratulations on being lectured on honesty in debating - by Bricker. :rolleyes: If that doesn’t give you pause, nothing will or can.
Btw, how many trillions of dollars of debt you guys up to now? It strikes me that those currently running things shouldn’t be allowed to run an ice cream truck let alone a country.
