See, I say that the spirit of justice is maintained when we assure that our elections are counted correctly. You say my solution violates justice; I say it maintains it. Who decides?
See, that’s the question you keep dodging. When the legislature, the courts, and the majority of the people all favor Voter ID laws, what possible legitimate mechanism in a representative democracy can scuttle them?
Hey Bricker, you never answer this question, how come Republican states haven’t instituted a program to help the poor get IDs totally for free.
Wouldn’t that increase representation in the polls, and therefore make the results more valid for all Americans?
Also. Why not the e-verify system, which can establish citizenship, unless someone supplies a fake ID (which your system would miss anyway), without hardship for the poor?
My guess is because you feel the poor shouldn’t vote, and you’re just a lying weasel. Otherwise you’d support making sure everyone has a voice.
Btw, do you regret your support of Bush? Do you feel your support for him was a good thing, or do you have shame about that now? I ask because I’m wondering how sincere you are.
Every state that requires Voter ID offers IDs for free to the poor.
No, the E-Verify system verifies eligibility to work. My wife, a citizen of the Dominican Republic and ineligible to vote, passes E-Verify just fine, because she’s a permanent resident.
Well, I suppose dishonest argument might work. Like when you pretend that you believe that I am arguing against voter ID laws as such, when you know full well that I am arguing against the partisan application of such laws to favor Republicans.
Of course, there is no actual Constitutional stipulation against dishonest argument, for that, we must depend upon the character and ethics of the advocate. In which we are often disappointed. As in this instance.
Remember this:
For a bright, shining moment, swiftly gone, you actually recognized the core of my position. Of course, you immediately reached into the slop bucket for a big handful of ad hominem…
But still! A moment of honesty before you revert to form. We must cherish these moments, I suppose, since they are so rare.
Lawya, please!
(One of my better lines. I say “mine” because I have freely and openly stolen it. And that is one hundred percent legal, and Constitutional!)
Well, yes, sorta kinda. For instance in Mississippi:
Totally free! Can’t have it, but if you could have it, it would be free! So, yes, strictly speaking, and with the invaluable assistance of Bricker’s Patented Zircon Encrusted Semantic Parsing Tweezers, one can certainly say that voter ID, when required, is free of charge!
Oh now you’re just talkin’ dirty sweet to me son. They built me two Lund’s stores downtown and are working on a Whole Foods, but where’s my Piggly Wiggly? Y’all a Memphis boy? Something tells me you’ve not always been from around here.
Perhaps, but it is akin to my observation earlier that you’re willing to either give up any integrity, or at least reveal that you have no integrity (or shame) in order to elect Romney. It’s kind of like questioning whether you are a $20 whore or a $5 whore, or really, if there is a lower bound. As long as it gets a Republican elected, it’s okay in Bricker’s book. I don’t even think you ever even cry in the shower afterwards.
Still waiting for the massive campaign to reform vote casting and tabulation though.
And considering it effects election counts a thousand times more than voter fraud no doubt we will see a thousand times the effort on this than on Photo ID Laws. Am I right or am I right?
Reading the editorial positions taken by the paper, I don’t see anything to change my characterization. But in any event, the link I gave addresses the point you complained of.
No kidding! Free press indeed; dirty hippies probably advocate peaceable assembly and redress of grievances too. I read the first three editorials; stop the partisan brickering, wives are not property and brewing beer at home should be legalized. My delicate sensibilities prevent me from reading any further.
Is there any doubt remaining about either the effect or the motive of these efforts to undermine democracy itself? Anyone? :dubious:
Guys, you’re wasting your time trying to convince **Bricker **out of a position he is holding despite all the evidence being to the contrary. You cannot convince a fundamentally dishonest partisan out of either dishonesty or partisanship, nor can you convince *anyone *to put country before party if he doesn’t know such a concept even exists.
For one thing, its good exercise, keep the aging synapses snappin’. Educated by Jesuits, trained as a lawyer, the boy has a whole array of shifty maneuvers. Plus, I find his brazen cynicism entertaining, especially when he dresses it up as idealism and purity. Now, that’s a hoot!
Lot like Scylla, in many ways, except Scylla is in Opus Dei and Bricker…wait a tic, are you in Opus Dei, Bricker?