I didn’t realize you were a fucking idiot. My bad.
Just out of curiosity, can we establish a spectrum ranging from:
“I am an American, endowed with civil rights and it offends me if my fellow Americans, any fellow American, is unjustly deprived of those rights.”
- to -
“I am an American. FUCK EVERYBODY ELSE! I got mine and if you’re too lazy or stupid to get yours then you should just fall in a ditch and die, you useless piece of shit.”
…and then place people on said spectrum.
It’s irrelevant to voter suppression but this thread has long since transmuted into “Wow!! Can you believe how stupid the Brickhead is?!”
I’ve found an interesting example in another thread. A subtopic was to compare headline and substance in this excerpt:
Obviously, an editing or translation error has rendered headline and the sentence it summarizes inconsistent with each other. IANAL, but I do know logic. (I was an expert circuit designer; and also constructed 5-star puzzles for Dell Logic magazine.) There was only one ay to resolve the ambiguity, IMO; I Googled and discovered I was correct.
Bricker, OTOH, was unable to do anything but what he does best: parse the English like a robot, the way his 5th-grade debating coach taught him, and post pedantic snark. He is unable to grasp that when faced with inconsistencies, one needs to try intelligent deduction. Here is the relevant post from that thread.
Increasingly, it seems, those of us who’ve been calling Bricker a “moron” sarcastically were truer-to-the-mark than we knew.
There are a lot of good reasons to criticize Bricker. There are also a lot of stupid ones. But septimus there seems to have gone out of his way to find the stupidest criticism imaginable.
Impressive, given some of the competition.
At the risk of hijacking this thread away from the abstract wilds of political theory or even the depths of friend Bricker’s moral turpentine, a heartening report from our good friends at Talking Points Memo.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/richard-posner-dissent-voter-id
**
9 Scathing Quotes From Judge Posner’s Dissent Against WI Voter ID**
Better late than never, I suppose. Not much better, but better.
You’re an outright party stooge. What makes you more pathetic is you’re too stupid to figure out how to get paid for it.
I stand up for every individual’s rights to life, liberty, and property. I do not stand up for their “right” to legitimize, authorize, and, by proxy, direct violence on other individuals. There is no such right.
Yes. That’s how Democratic Party hacks view those that simultaneously vote for and get stomped on by the party.
I know. It is despicable the way your party treats individuals of low means. First they keep them out of work by means of various protectionist schemes and shit education, then they ask for their vote and bus them to the polls. The days of machine politics are still here.
“They” is the Democratic Party and their donors.
Churchill starved tens of thousands of civilians intentionally. If Ted Bundy made statements in support of libertarian anarchism, I wouldn’t quote him.
I’m not a stooge. I think about my policy positions. You’re the one who believes utter nonsense.
Look, you’re pissed because you believe RW myths. I understand. But you’re angry at phantoms. In the real world you end up just being a prick because of your ignorance.
Wrong. It was an excellent demonstration of insistence on legalisms, about his pedantry about the exact use of language.
In the sentence which was inconsistent with its headline there was strong internal evidence that it had been mistranscribed or mistranslated. There was a jarring illogical mismatch in the quantitative adjectives. Someone interested in real truth or intuitive truth would have caught the error. A pedant intent on precise legalisms would miss it.
I’ll concede that I exaggerated the extent of moronity needed to produce the faulty interpretation. But it was a perfect metaphor for Bricker: All aboutr literalistic pedantry, no substance.
Who is so directing?
Well, it’s not my party, and Republican policies toward economics (namely, deregulation) and education (namely, cut funding to it while simultaneously interfering with it) are more significant than mere “protectionist schemes”, unless you’d care to expand on that.
I’ve no objection to the idea that machine politics still exists.
So 67 percent of people favor Voter ID laws and have no invidious motives therein. Excellent news, thanks.
Five percent of people are racists. That’s a shame, but five percent of people being general assholes is not much of a surprise.
Anyway, Voter ID rocks!
Of course, 67% of people don’t support implementing voter ID in a manner so as to provide partisan advantage to one party.
Of course you know that, but you’re okay lying to make a point.
True. Some of them even manage to chucklefuck their way through law school.
Especially when the GOP does it and it keeps poor people from voting?
Anyway, nice to see you back in the thread. Did enough time pass that you think people forgot how utterly you’re getting your nuts stomped in this argument?
Not about voter id. Not about the wonderful popularity of voter id. About using voter id as a means for one party to gain undeserved electoral power over the other. Right there in the title of the thread, “suppression”. You don’t seem to be able to grasp that, you keep defending voter id is if that was the crux of the biscuit. But, of course, its not.
And no comment to offer on that GAO report? What does that do to your “valid neutral justification” chant? Can a justification be valid and neutral when there is virtually no evidence of the thing it is supposed to “cure”, but solid evidence of damage? How can it be “neutral” in the face of such evidence that it targets one particular party?
Is it that you don’t actually need evidence, since yours is a “faith based” analysis? Is that report not evidence of precisely the points we have been making? Did you miss it, would it help if I link to it again?
What happens to “valid neutral justification” if it is not valid, nor neutral, nor justifiable?
Because that’s kinda what is says, right? That these laws are having a direct political effect on elections, to favor one party over the other. You’re cool with that, does that “rock”?
It’s entirely possible they DO, or at least they’d support implementations to give advantage to the party they favour. Personally, I figure a moral and ethical legislator would resist efforts to victimize the minority even if the majority wished it, and certainly not be egging the majority on.
My dealer specifically told me that I would not get flashbacks to the MTV “Rock the Vote” PSAs from the 90’s. I want my money back.
Surveys don’t lie, dude. People were asked about requiring Voters to provide ID. That’s what Voter ID laws do; that’s what they were asked; this is what they answered.
That’s why these laws exist.
My advice is move to Raratonga. There are probably no Voter ID laws there. Maybe there are, though. Still, the weather is nice, so you’ll have that going for you.
Crawford v. Marion County.
Plessy v. Ferguson.
To be fair, we should make a distinction between having a minimal requirement, and then increasing that requirement for no good reason. We’ve been a tad remiss in stating this distinction, but I think it’s been consistently implied.
You’re pretending the distinction doesn’t exist and are crowing about it. For shame.