Should the time come, you will know of my coronation by your children having free access to public colleges and never having to worry about losing their healthcare.
Also homos will be grinding each other to blaring techno music on TV 24/7.
Bricker, his arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Elucidator from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Lobohan, was to carry Elucidator. *That *is why I am your king.
I agree. It’s bad form to attack a group just to get one member of it. However if someone professes a faith in the principles central to the group, but doesn’t follow them, then that is an opening for an attack. Also it’s valid to demonstrate legitimate criticism of that groups core principles if they are relevant to the conversation.
What I mean is:
Catholics are child molesters! Unfair, and not an accurate or valid criticism.
The Catholic church has policies that enable pedophiles to molest children. Accurate and a valid criticism of the Holly See, but not exactly relevant to our general dislike of Bricker in regards to his views on voting rights. Therefore not a good thing to lob at him in this thread. Sure it hurts him but it does a real number on your own credibility.
Jesus was against abusing the poor. Bricker claims to follow Jesus, but abuses the poor, therefore he’s a hypocritical cunt. Valid criticism.
Bricker is a dickhead, who thinks whatever the court says is true, even if its wrong. Valid criticism.
We must remember to maintain credibility. To do this our criticism should have value on its own, and we shouldn’t attack innocent bystanders. Catholics, however you might feel about them as a group, includes otherwise likable people. They do not need to be insulted just to getBricker. We should use surgical strikes for arguments, not napalm the forest, and everyone in.
That whole stabby thing? I don’t think I would be much good at the stabby thing.
Shut up and get in the scabbard. This is a good gig!
Yeah, what about those guys that can’t dole out $10 for a poll charge? Not a tax, see, taxes are mandatory. This is optional. Don’t want to pay? Don’t vote. Simple.
Epicurus, the great abstainer?
10%.
- Fucking. Per cent.
That’s the rate of people in the USA lacking photo ID. One in ten. Go ahead, keep telling me about how easy and natural it is to have ID, and how only weirdos don’t have 'em. Go ahead, keep talking out of your fucking ass.
Yes. It is, however, another cost to be carried by the voter.
The fact that you consider this a factor is scary as fuck. Even ignoring the idea that the ambivalent mass is what keeps the radicals down, this idea that your right to vote should be contingent upon your willingness to jump through hoops is just sickening. No, your right to vote shouldn’t be contingent on anything other than being an adult citizen of the country of question, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Heh, talking out of your ass. Speaking of which, no one has proven why these people don’t have ID’s. You are only guessing as to the reasons. You assume multiple jobs where I’ve already posted a link where only 5% have multiple jobs and that assumes that holding multiple jobs is a valid reason to not get an ID in a 4 year period. You assume it is because they don’t have documentation.
The most logical reason is because they don’t want one, don’t need one, or are just to lazy to get one.
Kind of like the expectation of paying taxes. Another responsibility that people are required to meet.
Idiot.
King of Retarded Leftists?
Well said. I don’t get this notion that people shouldn’t have to do anything in order to vote . What’s next, claiming buying food is a poll tax? I mean, you can’t make it to the pools every two or four years without eating in between elections. FREE FOOD FOR EVERYONE. DELIVERED TO THEIR DOORS. AND SPOON FED TO THEM.
Yes, and I don’t care why. That dude was making it out like some tiny fraction of the populace had no ID, like the gun-toting tinfoil hat crowd and the remnant hippies. It’s not that simple. Furthermore, I have no idea why they don’t have them. You’d think that having ID is important… Yet they don’t have them. Maybe, just maybe, it has to do with things other than “they’re lazy”?
:smack:
Yes, felons don’t get to vote.
Hey, I’m not the one proposing a law that would make it impossible for tens of thousands to vote in order to invalidate maybe 10 cases of voter fraud.
I agree. There could be many reasons why some people don’t have ID. But why invent reasons when stupid and lazy are the most likely culprit for the overwhelming vast majority?
No, you are the one saying, “being an adult citizen of the country of question”, should be the only criteria. Is just being in the country on the day of the vote good enough proof of that for you?
An interesting review of the last election in 2008:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Election_reform/Final%2520report20090218.pdf
Because 10% is a very large portion. Far more than 0.0004%, FWIW. Claiming that all of them are due to extraneous circumstances would be ludicrous, but claiming that, say, 1% of those are? That’s entirely reasonable, IMO. Hell, I’d call 20% reasonable. But even then, you know what? “Lazy” is still not a terrible excuse. If I have no other reason to have ID in my life (and this isn’t exactly rare, mind you), and getting ID is possible, but takes time and energy to get… Well, should I really bother just to be able to vote? Keeping in mind, of course, that voter apathy is at very high rates…
- This isn’t a fair assessment of the situation as, as we have pointed out, there are commonly used methods of detecting and preventing voter fraud
- It’s worked pretty damn well thus far!
Oh look, a 200-page document. Anything in particular that you found “interesting”? Well, other than this part:
• In the states that only ask first-time voters to show any form of identification (including a
letter addressed to them), one-quarter of all voters stated they would not have been allowed
to vote had they not produced a photo ID.
• African Americans and Hispanics were asked to show “picture ID” more often than Whites
— 70% for African Americans, 65% for Hispanics, and 51% for Whites.
In all honesty, I’d be perfectly fine if the opposition said “we are proposing these laws to exclude stupid and lazy people from being able to vote”. That’s pretty much been our estimation of the opposition’s position from the start. It’s the disingenuous appeals to “voter fraud” that really get our goat.
Now if only there was a way to exclude the stupid from the right (and there are a lot of them), it would be a wash.
It’s not as if the left actually cares if these people have ID’s even given how beneficial it would be for them to have them, it’s the fact that it’s their votes that are most likely to be lost that bothers them.
Is there something dishonest about that? Would that be less hypocritical than pretending to care about voter integrity when its really about trimming the other side’s vote total?
Because, as I have pointed out to you many, many times: if they wanted to fix the problem, they could do it. See any such effort? Or do you see efforts to further restrict voter registration? Or do you see efforts like rolling back “Sunday voting”? Which, again I remind, has nothing whatsoever to do with the integrity of our voting rolls.
Yes, increased voter participation has the side effect of improving the Democrats’ partisan electoral prospects. It also has the effect of strengthening democracy. See, that’s part of what the Democrats stand for. The Republicans’ partisan advantage is, however, aligned with a need to *weaken *democracy.
How blind do you have to be to draw an equivalence there?
Other than the Republicans are painted as the ‘evil’ party who only cares about getting elected. So, if Democrats are the ‘good’ party who only cares about getting elected, you see a difference between them on how they actually act? And you wonder why in that link I provided about 43% of people who don’t vote don’t do so because they don’t like the choices they are offered?
Ah, so you are relying on the Republicans to fix your problems? As I’ve pointed out many times, a proactive party would look at this as an opportunity to get more votes by helping people get the ID’s they are lacking so they can vote. People tend to remember that sort of thing, YMMV of course. But then a party that relies on lazy people to vote for them probably reflects their base when it comes to motivating themselves. Then again, maybe the Democratic party actually realizes that these people aren’t going to vote no matter what they do and are using this issue as a talking point on how evil those Republicans are. Given that in the first link I provided it states that 76% percent of the people polled supported the idea of voter ID, it could find them on the wrong side of this issue.
Another link to piss off BPC.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
61.6 Turnout rate for 2008 = 131,304,731 voters.
From my previous link:
Of the 38.4% of people who did not vote only 10% of those cited identification as a concern. That ain’t 11% of the total population by any stretch. Closer to 4% actually. Ranking up their with just forgot to vote and the weather for reasons not to vote. Nor is it indicative of their ability to get ID, just that it could be a problem. It is given that these numbers would change if voter ID was required everywhere, so no need to point out the obvious.
Dunno, about as blind as thinking that requiring voter ID would stop people from voting who actually would like to vote? That the vote of the lazy and stupid would strengthen a country rather than just elect representatives that reflect those attitudes?
Democracy reflects the will of the people, all the people.
I take it you’re against democracy then.