Can you please cite that, you sickening liar?
Is this a walk-back? Because I don’t see how this makes sense otherwise, considering what you actually said before:
Lobohan loves it.
Not true. We have all observed how powerful incumbency is. Once appointed, a Senator enjoys a tremendous advantage with respect to reelection. “Throw the bums out!” but not my guy.
The series of back-and-forth votes absolutely threatened the “pendulum of democracy.”
Voter ID laws are not sui generis.
It’s not a walk-back. I don’t regard you as a moral authority. I don’t regard you as IMMORAL, but as far as invoking your moral authority to declare that Voter ID laws are immoral, your position is AMORAL: neither moral nor immoral.
Let’s leave your mother out of this. 
Please stop lying about my position. It’s very dishonest.
Is my position AMORAL, or am I “at best AMORAL”?
That’s a very valid correction.
Your position here is amoral at best. That says nothing about you as a person. My apologies.
Okay. You’re wrong about my position (in my opinion, obviously), but apology accepted.
And if the effort required approximates the value of a poll tax is it still reasonable?
You don’t understand present-day rightwingers, Max. Bricker may be much more intelligent than the average Republiopath, but he’s still got the same mindset.
One of their misconceptions is to lump people into two groups. Republicans are happy to associate with racists, fraudsters, idiots, etc. even though a given Republican might not be any of those things. The commonality is that they’re motivated by base emotions, especially envy and fear. I was enlightened about Bricker when he told us he “needed” a concealed-weapon permit.
Because of their us-vs-them reptilian cognition, they lump rational thinkers together as “leftists.” Since rational thought and humanistic values are alien concepts to them, they think of “leftists” as an opposite version of themselves – people who want to kill babies, who love terrorists instead of hating them, etc.
Since they love it when the GOP gets an unfair advantage, they assume non-Republicans love it when the Democrats get an unfair advantage. (Don’t remind Bricker that many “liberals” think some Democrats are just incompetent right-wingers; that would only confuse him.)
What real difference does it make if the efforts and burdens are themselves reasonable, when they are applied in a discriminatory fashion? Is it some unavoidable fact of life that simply cannot be adjusted? Or could efforts have been made to ensure that such burdens were deliberately minimized? Outside of Georgia’s “outreach” program, were any such efforts even considered?
And how come the Republicans get to decide that the Democrats will take one for the team. For the other team. The sheer fact of legislative power makes that kosher? Well, in that case, the Massachusetts Massacre was as innocent as virgins frolicking amongst the daffodils.
If we were to examine the legislative history of these actions, read the committee meeting minutes, would we find Republicans expressing their deep concern that these voter fraud prophylactics would not be a partisan burden, their civic virtue triumphing over partisan interests?
It would be lovely to think so. I don’t think so. Think most of these efforts came pre-packaged from ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council, and if you don’t know who they are, you are in for some very depressing reading…).
The dog that didn’t bark in the night, the Repubicans who didn’t talk about ways to make sure that their efforts to stem the dark terror of voter fraud would not be corrupted by partisan interest. Putting the resources of the state to aid the citizen in acquiring free, easy and convenient voter id, how hard could that be?
Now, if their motivation truly was…sordid…then this sort of thing would have been counter-productive, it would undermine the very goal of a partisan advantage. On the other hand, if their intentions were the pure soul of civic virtue, how come they didn’t?
As for friend Bricker’s pose that the matter is settled for good and all, the Courts have spoken, well, maybe. But if there are any more such proceedings, got a nickel says the GAO report is submitted as evidence. The official, boney fido government report, which we can fairly assume will carry some weight. Maybe not compared to something from the Heritage Foundation, but still…
That’s just not true. Bricker is only anonymous text on the internet, but I know some very committed Republicans in real life who do not remotely fit your caricature.
Well, Bricker’s eager to make lump statements about “liberals”, even as many posters in this thread make specific comments about him. Generalization is a tactic of limited utility, but that bell’s been rung long and hard.
Most people are good-spirited. Many people have solid and admirable “conservative” values, but aren’t tuned in enough to grasp how corrupted the present GOP is.
Do these Republicans you speak of “need” concealed-carry permits? Do they rejoice when state governments put up obstacles for voting? Do they call Democrats who oppose voter suppression “amoral”?
Yes, I exaggerate a bit, when speaking of the caricature Bricker has become. I’m happy to do so with a man who’s claimed that Clinton’s dalliance with Monica was a bigger crime than the Lies that led to Halliburton’s War against Gog and Magog, a man who views Karl Rove as a respectable statesman.
Even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications.
The amount of money, and whether it approximates the value of a poll tax, is not relevant. The poll tax is impermissible because the payment of a tax to vote is irrelevant to the voter’s qualifications.
That might sound like the trick Lobohan does: announcing a rule because he’s Lobohan.
But in fact:
That’s not just me announcing some rule of morality. That’s the standard of law we apply.
Yeah, it was especially annoying when** Lobo **announced that debate rule about how the side of the debate promoting change is to be held to a higher standard of evidence than the side that defends things as they are! Fucking Lobo! Where does he get that shit, anyway?
Do you? Bricker has announced his indifference to reason. After that, restraint is just a matter of impersonal politeness.
Or, if we’re in GD, deference to GD rules.
Come to think on it, where does he get the gall to change the definition of “eligible” to include an addenda of his own making? I mean, come on, Lobo!
I am guided by reason. i am indifferent to gratuitous claims of moral authority.
I have never “announced my indifference to reason.” I have announced my unwillingness to accept the shitty excuses you offer for your side’s supposed moral authority. Evidently you conflate that shit with “reason.”
No real surprise.