We can add spelling to the list of things you’re not good at. :dubious:
Of course it’s not climatology, but a message board blowhard that holds himself out as some sort of climate change “expert” would at least have a passing knowledge of meteorology and geography, which you clearly do not.
That’s why we have courts.
If one side contends that a change is disguised as purely procedural, but in reality creates an unacceptable barrier to a particular group, they ask the courts to invalidate it. Indeed, in a couple of cases, courts have done so. And I am perfectly sanguine about that.
In other words, I accept the result of the workings of representative democracy, which process includes the courts.
You, it appears, are inclined to do so when the result aligns with your desired policy, but not so much when it does not.
What happened to, “Well, I am arguing with you; what other people do doesn’t interest me so I won’t address it?”
I am not the only person to ever propose the invidious effect of an ultra-close election when there are no sureties for voter identity. But why do you care? Why are you asking me to comment on their tactics, when my requests for you to comment on people much closer to,the discussion falls on deaf ears?
On the contrary – most people in this thread are arguing that Voter ID should be found unconstitutional.
But I don’t. I regard them the same way I regard the Massachusetts legislature changing the rules so that a Republican can’t appoint a senator to a vacant seat but a Democrat can, or the way Democrats use “walking around money” to increase turnout: it’s a technically legal tactic that a motivated partisan uses because that’s what motivated partisans do.
A negative, almost certainly, but the question is flawed. A single person is judged by his informed conscience and whether he understood an act to be wrong. Since “the Republican Party” is made up of many persons, some of whom support these laws for very acceptable reasons and some who don’t, it’s not useful to analogize the entire party to a single person.
I think that composite person would say something like, “I did what everyone else does.” And I think that’s a true statement. Where the problem arises is in deciding just how informed the conscience of the composite person is, and how the multitude of different motives coalesce into a single person’s decision.
Thank you for demonstrating all how dumb you are, as pointed I already acknowledged the error with the hurricane, you only have demonstrated that you are not learning anything, you numbnuts.
That was your point, so fight it with yourself.
BTW it was referring to the moves made by the Republicans before any vote is casted, so you are still going about the wrong issue.
That will work if you are accusing now the professor (and the other authors) of the latest study as being partisan or that he is lying. Are you?
So it is still your problem that you are avoiding, and everyone can see that you continue to avoid what the latest study is telling us.
I’m trying to concentrate on the existential assignment of collective and personal responsibility in political action, but am distracted by consequences of innovation, in this case, the introduction of the NFL to the Teflon coated football.
I would have thought they would pick a better time to make such a change, but no…
Um, you’ve already demonstrated that you are not any good at meteorology, geography, grammar, or spelling.
Why should a reader of this message board believe your grandiose pronouncements about climate change?
Are you incapable of rational thought? I demonstrated already that I can accept my mistakes and learn from them, you are lying to yourself now.
Because you are the only one that is getting stuck like a broken record (because as anyone can see, it is the only issue you have found that you can tell to yourself is a useful one) and never learning anything new, like learning that I already acknowledged the issues. As I like to say when I encounter dumb ones like you, I prefer to stumble from time to time, rather that be like you; someone that only lies to himself or herself and never learns anything.
Ah yes, Gaudere is a harsh mistress. I meant to say that I prefer to stumble from time to time, rather than be like you; someone that only lies to himself or herself about what someone said before and to be someone that never learns anything.
Like how many Republicans are making a fool of yourself when science or evidence should be taken into account. (And the grammar of an opponent is jut what it is, a red herring) You should learn too that not all of them like to follow willful ignorants like you.
[QUOTE=The Bad Astronomer]
Over the past few years I’ve hammered pretty hard at Republicans in Congress for being anti-science because … well, because, as a party, they are.
But there’s dissension in the ranks, and I’m very, very pleased to hear it. And it’s over the single most important topic in the politicization of science: climate change.
There have been a few voices in opposition to the staunch GOP plank of head-in-the-sandism, but just a few. Lindsey Graham, for one, and Jon Huntsman for another (though Huntsman is a former governor of Utah, and not in Congress). I’ve also mentioned Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, before, who signed on with President Obama’s EPA Clean Power Plan.
Phil Plait Phil Plait
Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death From the Skies!
But now it looks like they’re getting organized. In the Senate, Ayotte, along with Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee; Graham; and Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, has formed a Senate Energy and Environment Working Group, the purpose of which is to “focus on ways we can protect our environment and climate while also bolstering clean energy innovation that helps drive job creation. The group will meet periodically to discuss general energy and environmental issues and exchange ideas about potential legislation.”
That is fantastic news! I also like that they are paying attention to “market-based reforms” when it comes to energy. Alternative energy sources (notably wind and solar) are getting cheaper very quickly, and in many places are on equal footing with the energy generation cost for fossil fuels. It makes good economic sense to invest in these sources, and that’s a powerful argument when it comes to the conservative party … assuming that fossil fuel money won’t always present a roadblock to the ones in power.
[/QUOTE]
Others have looked too the matter at hand, and even before the most recent study, they found why is that minorities and the poor are the targets of the new laws.
Wow. Rick Perry, the ACA, the Voting Rights Act, and the 10th Amendment, all in one post. Are you finished yet?
Sample GIGOBuster post:
You’re wrong about the NFL rules change. As proof, here are eight articles about how the Republicans are wrong on the science of climate change thus proving my point about NFL rules. Because science.
Exhibit #1101 of Bricker avoiding dealing with the ones that do know better than me because… well it is easy to kill the messenger than to deal with the message indeed.
I prefer to have problems with grammar rather than being a willful ignorant with no good replies to what a professor and others have found.
Too bad.
The Supreme Court did not agree with the author of the piece you quote.
Your article says:
(all sorts of reasons Sec 5 of the Voting Rights Act prevents Texas from enforcing its law)
The Supreme Court said:
(Sec 5 of the Voting Rights Act is struck down)
So did you know that you were quoting an article that was arguing for a result at the Supreme Court that had already gone the other way?
There’s probably some defense for this error in a climate change article. Why don’t you post it?
Personal dig noted once again, Indeed, it was an older article and I mentioned it because more evidence has come to show how wrong the SC got it then, now deal with the most recent one rather than the red herring of where it came from.
Oh, no! A professor?
Well, why didn’t you say so before?
Clearly, we can’t argue with a professor.
Unless… we ALSO have a professor!
Then I can ask you how you are a willful ignorant who dares to argue with a professor.
So what’s the story now? How dare you argue with a professor?
The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means,
That’s how the system works. Do you need a cite for that?
Maybe something involving climate change? I know you love those.
AFAIK the supreme court did declare that it was unconstitutional for the states to ask for permission before adding voting restrictions, so after the new laws are in place it seems that the federal government and other courts can still intervene if evidence comes forward that a new law results in old and new tricks from the states that did discriminate against minority voters.
Now I wonder about you, that was a reply to the other poster that does want to pretend that even if a correction was made before, that the correction never took place… because it is easy to continue thinking that I never did.
By pointing out that based on the latest evidence he was wrong in 2012.
Here is interesting to note that I have seen this tactic many times before, it is classic FUD made many times before with Tobacco smoke, ozone layer depletion, acid rain, etc. It is not too hard to find experts that do support a controversial course of action, like not doing anything about problems like those; in this case claiming that a new law was not going to significantly affect the voting rights of minorities or the poor.
And it was a prediction anyhow, an educated one but a prediction still. It needs to be eventually checked. As noted already, is not likely to be correct after checking the most recent results.
Correct.
And they did.
And the trial judge ruled sweepingly against Texas.
And Texas appealed.
And Texas then won their major point at the Fifth Circuit, although it lost some others which were sent back to the trial court for reconsideration under the correct standard.
Are you at all interested in hearing what the Fifth Circuit said? I will explain it, if you care. If you don’t care because you’re right and they’re wrong no matter what, I won’t waste typing time.
Funny that you disagreed all along, no matter what the earlier results were.