The War Between the States was primarily a result of Northern economic aggression. That’s a true fact, you could look it up!
This is evidence of NOTHING other than your own nasty outlook towards anyone not in your exalted social status. It says rather a lot about you.
:eek: 
I thought it was your brainless kitty-kat jumping on the keyboard when you claimed yesterday that you were posting here just to defend the concept of “legitimate law.”
But no; now you’re doubling down.
Have I ever said that my objection to voter suppression measures was because they were unconstitutional? Has 'Luci? Has Mr. Glutton? Has anyone in the thread?
Geeez. 9000 posts in the thread and you don’t even know what your position is or that of your opponents? :smack:
When you’re dead and wondering why St. Peter isn’t inviting you past the pearly gates, it really will be like that scene from Chinatown:
“I’m an arrogant asshole.”
[slap]
“I’m a demented moron.”
[slap]
“I’m an arrogant asshole.”
[slap]
“I’m a demented moron.”
[slap]
[Bricker breaks down into tears]
“I’m an arrogant asshole and a demented moron.”
Or ask yourself does a poor downtrodden drunken asshole have less civil rights than an comfortable uptrodden drunken asshole?
Not that I recall. I suspect because:
a) we have a nonpartisan government agency whose primary purpose is maintaining voter rolls with the goal of counting everyone, and not looking for ways to “purge” people off the lists, hence there’s less suspicion among Canadians that their elected officials are trying to steal (or at least bias) elections.
b) the above-mentioned agency works with other governmental agencies to maintain those rolls, and Canadians have less paranoia about governmental surveillance. There’s a box on my federal tax return asking politely if I’d mind if Revenue Canada shared my info with Elections Canada. If someone suggests an American federal agency be set up with same goal of sharing info on American citizens, what percentage of your population would reflexively call it fascism or communism or (showing the depths of their furious confusion) both? 0-5? 5-10? 10-60?
c) the list of acceptable IDs for a Canadian election is a pretty lengthy one. If an elected official today declared that the list was too long and had to be pared down for security, he better have a pretty strong case that election security is being genuinely jeopardized. Citing a noncitizen who may have voted once back in 1996 isn’t compelling (ask Bricker if the name “Ramon Cue” means anything to him).
d) basically overall, Canadians live at a much lower terror level than Americans. Thus reasonable regulations are more likely to pass without a blip, and unreasonable regulations are less likely to get traction without a public panic to drive them.
A quibble, but an important point: I have no objection to voter ID as such. If the Republicans had wanted to ensure their precious voter confidence while assuring that there was no partisan bias in its operation, they could have done so. They did not, and for a very good reason. They did not want to.
Was it also moral to have whipped up those non-fact-related “concerns” in the first place?
Then that’s a healthy departure from an earlier position of yours which held that governmental efforts to emotionally manipulate citizens was okey-dokey.
I’ll need some facts to admit that to evidence, preferably evidence of concerns that are based on facts and not lies. Granted, Americans can choose what they wish to concern themselves with, and if I suppose there was a national panic about brain-sucking alien vampires, it would be within the purview of elected officials to investigate and if necessary legislate a response to make brain-sucking while in a vampiric condition and lacking citizen papers a Class B Felony, though since brain-sucking alien vampires don’t actually exist, anyone arrested on that basis is by definition a false positive, and that’s rather less acceptable, wot?
Again, thanks for the answers. None of them, however, addressed the question of “Why all of a sudden in 2007 did people think having an ID to vote was a good idea?”
You mentioned that a strong case would have to be made to pare down the acceptable ID list. However, why is such a list necessary? why have the need for ID at all? Seems like removing the need for an ID would probably save some time and money during elections.
Well, as a concept I can’t say requiring identification to vote is immoral, but I would consider it immoral to add requirements that aren’t necessary for partisan advantage. Similarly, I’ve no objection and will gladly support health regulations on abortion clinics that medical experts have testified will protect health. I would find it to be an immoral exercise to add more regulations that do not reduce risks to health but simply reduce access to abortion, like requiring hospital-level infrastructure, requiring useless ultrasounds and delays, spreading misinformation linking abortion to breast cancer (suspect at best, a malicious lie more likely) or deciding that abortion clinics must be 2000 feet from schools.
Immoral to do so, immoral to lie about why you’re doing so.
I’d have to look into it, since I’m unfamiliar with the debates before the legislation, if any. Frankly, American politics are so much more entertaining because you all make such a bloodsport out of it.
Heck, for all I know, the legislation in 2007 was just to set a national standard for what forms of ID would be acceptable, replacing earlier more localized regulations of varying scrutiny.
No argument here. I’ve voted in elections (pre-2007, I’m sure) where I just gave my name and address, which an election official crossed off a list they had and then handed me a ballot. We could go back to that and still maintain a functional democracy, I’m sure.
I’m not sure how much time and money would be saved, though. I’m guessing not a lot.
Today I learned **inscrutable **is fucking stupid.
Agreed; I tried to specify that in my post.
Also agreed. Such laws could have been framed in a neutral fashion. In practice, they (sometimes) weren’t, and that’s the basis of my charge of immorality. And also unconstitutionality.
If real (not feigned and rationalized) neutrality had been a consideration, the bills would never have been written. Their central *purpose *is non-neutrality.
No, dumbo, the intent of the legislators doesn’t make it unconstitutional:
Quoting, for the zillionth time, Crawford v Marion County. That’s the Supreme Court decision that upheld Voter ID laws.
And, shock of shock, after numerous protests and admonitions that no one here is calling these laws unconstitutional, here comes a passionate attempt to argue that the laws are unconstitutional. I await the next series of posts which confidently declare that this post never happened.
Yes. Plenty of times. See previous post.
Or concentrate really really hard, and it will just vanish away, just as your approach to the world is in all things ideology, and when the facts are contrary to what your politics tell you should be true, it is the politics that you believe, and not those nasty terrible facts.
Insult from Lobohan = badge of honor.
Civil War has been debated ever since, and regularly on this very board, so apparently “debatable”.
I’m not insulting you, I’m noting that your views are those of a mental deficient.
It’s debatable, in that some will try. It isn’t actually in question though.
I have been careful not to say that “no one” is calling them unconstitutional.
But that has certainly not been the main thrust of the “liberal side” of this debate, to the extent that there has been a main thrust when there are dozens of posters making different points.
And, btw, Bricker, what is your opinion of post 9078 from inscrutable?
BTW, there’s a big protest going on in Washington all this week, against voter-ID laws and a great deal else about our electoral systems.