Great.
Then let’s take that as the new ruleset.
You’re free to think voters shouldn’t have to produce ID. The rest of the country is free to collectively reject that cunning plan. I’m free to chortle happily as court after court hands a defeat to you.
And the voters are free to get their free ID and vote, or whine about how they can’t.
I like it.
I don’t necessarily agree with any or all parts of Bryan Ekers’s post, but to compare the rules that govern interaction on a message board with the rules that govern democratic elections is beyond ridiculous.
I also note you ignored all the substance of what I thought was a fairly interesting post and focused on whether or not you’re treated unfairly. The answer to which is almost certainly (a) probably, (b) because you’re outnumbered and it’s human nature, and (c) who cares?
Oh. So, the Republicans who have malign motives in all of this, this “some” Republicans you stipulate are up to no good…they’re stupid? Because voter id is free and readily accessible, and any effort to use voter id issues as a means to hinder, harass, and otherwise discourage Democrat base voters…is doomed to fail?
Fact is, it never had a chance at all, according to you, because voter id cannot be used maliciously, no matter how cunningly they plan? Well, what a bunch of maroons, eh, guy? Dumbass Republicans, what a burden they must be to you!
You do realize that is what this is about, right? That every time you forthrightly declare the crunchy goodness of voter id, you are evading the point?
If you ever finally arrive at the place where you care more about justice than you do about legality, do let us know, we are eager to celebrate.
Everything he said, and I repeated, is accurate. I’m free to do my thing, you’re free to do your thing, and the voters are free to vote, or not, as their exercise of freedom dictates.
You’re free to think that.
I’m free to disregard it.
The voters are free to get their free ID, or not, as they freely choose.
Oh, goody! So, they failed, then? These “some” Republicans with unsavory motives and sordid intentions, they did not succeed? A delightful story to be told, there, can you fill in the details?
The details are simple. You’re free to complain. Everyone who actually makes decisions is free to ignore you.
We can test this theory.
Do we still have Voter ID laws?
Yes.
Yup, all working according to the freedom plan.
Well, now I just have no idea at all what the heck you’re talking about. Because of course people who would like to vote but do not have IDs are NOT free to vote, if voter ID laws pass.
So… what point are you trying to make?
Why the fuck would I bother to impose a ruleset where freedom has been maximized to my satisfaction?
It’s not my country, bub (and your first sentence is not my position, but whatever). Anyway, if you want to chortle after playing the argumentum ad populum card, be my guest. I could reply that I’d chortle every time you complain that your views aren’t popular on this board, but I won’t because arguments like that are stupid and immature. I’ll try to keep my use of them ironical at all times, all times being infrequent at best.
And many Americans agree with you about this and similar issues, which is not good, really. This casual disregard for your fellow citizens (combined with the idea that suffering is virtuous and pleasure is sinful) is one of the major flaws with your superstition- and racism-infused culture.
The ID is not “free”, incidentally, as has been explained to you repeatedly. Reality is easier for you to deal with when you deny it, I guess.
Then they’re free to whine about it, per Bryan’s wise guidance.
You’re free to post those opinions, of course.
If there is a cost to meet the requirements to get the free ID, is it still free?
It’s essentially impossible for anything to be “free,” if the answer to your question is “no.” A store could give away chaise lounges at no cost, but customers would still need to expend gas money to drive themselves to the store. And if the store refused to provide twine and protective wrap, I still promise you that no one would suggest that the chaise lounges were not really free.
But it makes no difference. As Bryan cogently observes, we are each free (in the sense of ‘permitted’) to react as we like to whatever scheme exists.
So your argument has shifted to the “repeatedly state the obvious” phase, now? That’s even lazier than falling back on “well, the legislature passed it, the governor signed it, therefore I believe it.”
Besides, this isn’t analogous to giving away a free piece of furniture which can be obtained with some effort. This is more like making it mandatory for citizens to possess a piece of furniture (which can be obtained with some effort) for no good reason.
By the way, if Bricker maintains this pattern of non-responsive responses, will he have gone the full (dougie) monty?
Well, you’re free to express that opinion, of course.
And I am free to ignore it.
I am certainly grateful to you for short-circuiting all the other stuff that was needlessly clogging up discussion here.
Yay freedom!
Now you’re just being childish, and even more so than usual.
Anyway, the fact that I’m free to utterly ignore your opinion won stop me from disproving it, and I am confident that I have done so.
Again.
When you respond to my argument by pointing out that everyone here is free to do as we please, presumably that was not childish. Was it?
So for some inexplicable reason, it’s only ‘childish’ when I do it. Hmmm… what could that reason be?
Well, whatever it is, you’re certainly free to maintain those separate standards. Because freedom!
You’re ignoring the context of the response, which was specifically to your oft-used tact of claiming to be on the receiving end of unfair treatment on this board because your politics are not popular here. It’s only inexplicable if you ignore the explanation.
You have ample access to adult conversation about the subject. You argued that sustaining voter confidence is more important than avoiding disenfranchisement. I see this as a blatant pretext for election manipulation (and sometimes the pretext is plain and simple text). I am confident my position is more rational than yours, given certain axioms like “democracy is good” and “democracy involves voting”.
C’mon, guys, he’s got us dead to rights with that argument about how we hate freedom. After all, what is the ACA but a Big Government assault on Americans’ right to be sick without government interference?
And how many of us would have been entirely ignorant about CASA’s nefarious schemes to provide illegal aliens with the necessary training for fraudulent voting, had it not been for his bold revelations! And while it is true that the revelation could reasonably be categorized as “anecdotal”, keep in mind in comes from a source who’s candor and unflinching honesty is the stuff of legend!
And, yes, “some” Republicans had sordid motives for pressing the case, but they were totally overwhelmed by the vast majority of Republicans who would not stoop to such vile tactics. What? You didn’t hear about that? Well, that’s because Republicans are naturally modest and reserved, not inclined to brag about their devotion to equal rights before the law. Maybe not *after *the law, but before it, to be sure!
We can be certain that the vast majority of Republicans firmly opposed the cadre of liberal Republicans who marched in lockstep with ALEC! They just did it quietly and without drawing attention to themselves! “Quietly”? Nay, silently, not even a whisper, not the sort of people who brag about stuff like that!
OK, there was that one guy who mouthed off about voter ID handing the election to Romney, but couldn’t he have been acting as a whistle-blower? Clearly, if “some” Republicans had underhanded motives, doesn’t that mean that most did not? Doesn’t that mean that our failure to applaud and honor those Republicans is just another example of liberal hypocrisy, our failure to give credit where credit is due?