I don’t see anything in Kimstu’s quote that can be at all construed to mean “Kimstu gets to decide these things.”
Again I ask: what other method, if any, should be used to create laws, then?
Or perhaps I should be asking: what of it? Your opinion is that one party used bad faith to pass these laws, and so … ? What?
That’s it? That’s the end of the message?
I don’t buy it. I buy that you’re unwilling to explicitly articulate the end of the message, yes.
Sure, there’s nothing there.
But what’s the implication? If the laws are created with bad faith and are bad laws, but created and upheld with the proper process, then… what?
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask Kimstu to tell us instead of drawing some conclusion yourself that is not supported by the text of her post?
I will add that if she is guilty of anything in that post, it’s a bad analogy. The “strip search middle age white males before voting” clearly would not stand up to scrutiny in the courts, unlike Voter ID laws.
Then we complain about in the Pit. This is news to you?
Then we criticize the laws and supporters, we say that they’re wrong, and we say that passing such laws (and supporting such laws) is immoral.
I propose it’s as least as good as Bricker’s repeated references to a “voodoo curse” hypothetical, possibly even better because instead of just an unreasonable fear keeping people from the polls, it’s an unreasonable fear prompting support for a law that keeps people from the polls.
Even Bricker doesn’t believe what he’s saying here (regarding people here wanting to overthrow the system). He’s just using a bunch of bullshit sophistry as if this was a high school debating club. (Not that this board somehow rises to a more important level than that; I’m just pointing it out).
The other thing I would say about that example, Bricker, is that Kimstu is certainly one of the more thoughtful posters on this MB. Whether you agree with her politics or not, the idea that she would propose some extra-legislative, extra-judicial method of enacting laws is ludicrous. I don’t doubt there are posters here who have advocated such at various times, but Kimstu? That’s cray-cray-ville.
On the other hand, I guess it would explain in part Bricker’s views of liberals, if he thinks that even the saner ones are bent on overthrowing democracy.
He has given us several examples of the dialog going on in his head. It has been illuminating, and has made clear why this thread has gone on for so long.
Rather than actually listen to what others are saying, he has some kind of Ann Coulter cartoon running in his head. This seems to dramatically limit his comprehension of external reality.
That would be work. I hate work.
No, of course not. To continue your unfinished sentence: “…so we make arguments to sway people’s opinions, in real life or on message boards, in the hopes that they eventually vote out the people making the bad laws, and stop the effective disenfranchisement of the less fortunate.”
That’s it. I’m not sure why you infer a further, wilder advocacy of overthrowing the way our governments function. This is just a message board, Bricker. All we can do here is debate and discuss, and try to influence the decisions of anyone amenable to changing their minds.
I personally think you are one of those people; we’ve seen you change your mind before. But even if you’re never going to be swayed on this issue, other people might. For every reader who posts to this thread, there are probably hundreds who read silently, and some of those may be on the fence regarding the issue of Voter ID. I can’t speak for everyone here who posts, but while I post explicitly to try convincing you, I’m also posting to convince all the readers of this thread.
As a secondary matter, I like hearing the other sides of issues, because I too am amenable to having my mind changed by facts and strong arguments. Now, obviously neither of us has managed to sway the other on the matter of Voter ID, but hope springs eternal.
Sorry if that wasn’t vitriolic enough for the pit, but there you are.
That mindset has made me wonder - how do Americans who believe as Bricker does think other countries manage? On a list of what are typically considered “modern liberal democracies”, the United States is among the most right-ish. If American liberals want to overthrow democracy, how do countries that are overall left of the United States manage to maintain democracies? Or do they? Is there an unspoken assumption that Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, the Scandinavian countries, etc. are not “real” democracies?
Same thing regarding rhetoric describing Obama as a Marxist. Obama’s politics would be unremarkable, even conservative, in a Canadian politician. Is Canada a Marxist state?
I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem, through Bricker’s seeming logic. Where I live we’re just a lot more liberal or lefty anyway, so there’s less of/no need for us to start dismantling the rule of law. It’s only in the more righty countries, where we get fewer of the laws the way we’d like, that we turn to “these laws should be trashed, with or without the legislature”.
And yet most of those “liberal” countries have voter ID laws, no? Go figure…
What color is Canada’s flag?
CMC fnord!
Weren’t we supposed to get, like, a whole bunch of examples? Oodles and gobs? I feel a little cheated here…
It is almost as if the “libby” concern was about something other than the IDs themselves. Hmmm…
I did.
Naturally, Kimstu did not answer.
Even liberals aren’t dumb enough to plainly say what they plainly wish to so.