Is that another “joke?”
Psst, Bricker: posts 5771 and 5790 still await your response.
That’s right, because our form of government isn’t a pure democracy for a reason. There are fundamental principles. There are societal mores.
Also, I bet quite a few of those people are for voter IDs but may well be against the associated costs some conservatives have included. I don’t have a problem with voter IDs that don’t take the time and other resources many people don’t have to spare.
Counting that most people is like the conservative claim that most people are against Obamacare. They included liberals who are against Obamacare because it doesn’t go far enough. Those conservatives also gloss over the fact that when asked about the specific provisions of Obamacare, most people favor most of them.
I think this kind of assertion is why many people dislike your style of “debate”. Form over content. Yes, the statement is superficially true, but if you dig deeper, it’s just propaganda.
Isn’t the very existence of a constitution undemocratic, in the sense that there are things expressly forbidden even if the population majority-voted for it, i.e. a referendum to kill all Jews or whatever. There have certainly been times in American history where plebiscites such as this would have gotten 51% support or more.
Of course, the very fact that democracy is limited in this fashion allows the democracy to exist, whereas the uncontrolled form would rapidly descend into violence, chaos, civil war.
Hurricane Arthur is God’s vengeance on North Carolina for all this voter-suppression shit!
So there!
I just figured you out. You’re not disingenuous, you’re socially inept.
“What is this thing, you liberals call, joke?” — Brickky Stardust
Well, I still love it. 
To kinda sorta get the thread back on topic…I’ll post something about the oh-so-horrible effects of requiring ID to vote.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/153077-racist-voter-id-laws-much2/
Pretty damn oppressive, yep, yep.
Oh very nice! Quick stop them folks before they show everyone how competent they really are!
Wherever do you guys keep finding these strictly non-partisan sources for fact? I am impressed with the care these guys take to give a fully rounded and unbiased viewpoint! As evidenced in their sources…
Well, there you have it! Who needs to include any other possible interpretations when the clear truth is so succinctly outlined! How can anyone doubt that such a clearly unbiased and non-partisan phrasing like “race baiting canard” springs from any motivation but a fervent desire for unvarnished candor?
What? Blightbart and World Nut Daily had both thumbs up their respective butts and couldn’t type anything? A pity they didn’t include all those candid photos of black folks in NC celebrating their joyous and unanimous approval of NC Republicans, or the many, many approving and laudatory quotes from local black leadership, blubbering in gratitude.
Rats.
I saw this post and was very pleased.
Then I read the link:
Sounds like a solid thumping for the contrary position, right?
Except:
And I’m not reading anything about the voters that answered “no,” not being counted in the study.
So this is meaningless. The law did not prevent anyone from voting, being a “dry run.” It doesn’t make any sense to argue that this shows that Voter ID opponents were wrong. Voter ID proponents argue that requiring ID will reduce minority turnout – they don’t argue that merely asking a voter IF he has ID will reduce turnout.
Of course, it means nothing in the other direction, either.
Students Joining Battle to Upend Laws on Voter ID
College Students Claim Voter ID Laws Discriminate Based on Age
The students’ suit has been combined with the suits from the other groups.
Hey, you kids! Over here, my lawn is well tended, and you are welcome any time! Don’t worry none about the dog, he’s too drunk to bite.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
**
A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast**
Now, keep in mind, this does not take into account any number of super-dooper ultra close elections that might have been swayed if all 31 of those votes had happened in the same election and all for the same candidate! Nor has it anything to say about all the super-dooper ultra close elections that might very well happen at some time in the future, unless firm and decisive action is taken!
Oh, a side note about the all=important voter confidence:
Well, duh.
From your link:
As extensively hashed out in this very thread, the issue is not a concerted effort to steal an election. It’s an election that comes down to the wire, ultra-close, and for which we cannot trust the results because we don’t know that all the cotes came from qualified voters.
it’s true that “trying to steal an election” rarely happens that way. But that’s a strawman argument.
Still, you have quoted a truly inspiring authority: a Washington Post guest-blogger who is a law professor and (gasp!) liberal as the moon is high. He offers his non-binding, libby liberal view of what the law should be.
So let me offer a somewhat more solid, grounded, grown-up version of a write-up which declares what the law ACTUALLY IS:
Hey, look at that. Our old friend Crawford v. Marion County! Don’t you just love that decision? Its poetry, its charm, its sophistication? Me too!
So, one one hand, liberal law professor who is on no one’s court says that Wisconsin is wrong…and on the other hand, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, saying Wisconsin gets to keep their Voter ID law!
Hmmm… which side would I like to be on?
I know: the side that actually wins the case. I know, I know – the side that wins the hearts of the Washington Post and Mother Jones, that’s a good side too. Sure. No question about it.
But I’ll make you a deal, elucidator: as long as the courts keep handing down those decisions, your team of liberals can keep moaning about how bad they are.
Shorter Bricker: The court says that people are confident, so therefore they are confident.
What a dumb fuck. Total authoritarian: those are the facts because the authorities told me so! Fuck your empirical research about people’s confidence in reality.
Sycophantic bitch.
I have already noted the fatal flaw in that empirical research – it asked people who were asked for photo ID for their sense of confidence – but those people were well aware that photo IDs were not REQUIRED, so of course the mere asking does not boost confidence.
You simply pretend that this objection does’t exist. I have no idea how you justify this to yourself, but I have two theories. You are willingly a liar in the service of a higher “good” cause. Or you’re just fundamentally dishonest.
Which is it?
The study linked in the article under discussion uses a representative survey sample. I don’t know what, if any, study you’re talking about, but the one in question was not selected by history of being asked for voter ID. It is entitled:
“Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements”
You might have actually read it if you did not make your decisions solely on what your chosen authorities tell you.
Say, if your still doing your improvisational lecture series on Logic 101, you could use this one for your ad hominem example, got all the needful elements.
Also, what I’m mostly interested in is his ability to count, basic arithmetic, he comes up with a number. So either the number is roughly true, or exactly true, or orders of magnitude totally wrong, his political leanings don’t necessarily enter into it.
He’s lying, or he’s wrong about the numbers? OK, prove it. But aren’t you somewhat obligated to do a better job of it than just exposing his unsavory political leanings?
There are provably more than 31 cases. There were over 100 in Minnesota alone in 2008.
And that’s only convictions. If we use the same logic with tax fraud, then tax fraud is such a vanishingly small problem that we shouldn’t burden taxpayers with having to prove their income.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Enforcement-Statistics-Criminal-Investigation-(CI)-Enforcement-Strategy
Only 2300 tax fraud convictions per year, out of hundreds of millions of returns filed! Obviously, tax fraud is not a problem.