Hmmmmmm, thanks for the help. I think I would use a good number of those letters and I might even use a few of the words but it still lacks something.
Okay dipshit. How about fender-benders? It stops five fender benders but causes ten thousand.
How about dropped phone calls? It saves five dropped phone calls but drops ten thousand.
How about broken pieces of pencil lead? It saves five from breaking, but snaps ten thousand?
The point, friend Bricker, is that small numbers are smaller than big numbers. I know you’re a lawyer and don’t have to deal with numbers a lot, but that is something you should have learned.
Making it harder for millions to vote just so you can keep dozens from voting is a poor excuse. Especially if those millions just so happen to favor the political enemies of the guys causing the rule.
The reason is, I’d assume, that I don’t go around saying absurd and stupid stuff like you do. You’ve shown you’re smarter than Clothy, Shodan and Magellan, yet you parrot the same nonsense they do, and on top of that, make utter bullshit arguments.
Your default response to anything is, “buh… buh… buh… Democrats do it toooooo!” And it’s a stupid argument and thus it generates comments like that.
If no one praises my intellect, it might be because I don’t go around pushing gibberish for partisan reasons. Do you see me fighting nuclear power? No, because that’s where some liberals are wrong.
In any case, I leave it up to the reader to find out if any of my arguments are of the same puerile, vapid nature as yours in this very thread.
You are just throwing a tantrum now, you know as well as all the onlookers that you’re wrong. That’s why every few posts you smugly declare that the law supports you, so nyaaa!
As I say, if you show intellect and then resort to nonsense arguments you’ll get people saying, “You’re not that stupid Bricker.”
I try to not resort to nonsense arguments. <3
And yet by some miracle, almost none do!
Like George W. Bush?
Bully for you. Doesn’t mean they actually did it though. I thought we were presumed innocent until otherwise proven?
Dude, do you honestly think I believe showing the ability to vote fraudulently is deserving of US citizenship? The point I was trying to make, because you seemed to have missed it, is that the lengths and assumption you are making our fraudulent voter go to in order to vote as a deceased person in WA (who died out of state but is still on the voter roll) are so strenuous and illogical, he might as well apply for and attain US citizenship the old fashioned way to vote, because that will be much much easier.
Depends, doesn’t it? If the wording is “state issued photo ID” then passports must be added as an “also”, since Minnesota does not issue passports. Yet.
Not what you said before. Before you just said that the CASA person was advising people that they might be able to vote without documentation. When did you find out this CASA volunteer was speaking to a group of illegals? How did you know? Who did you turn her in to?
And your anecdotes are data, now?
The problem is not the numbers. The problem is that you keep trying to equate the imposition of an additional (highly reasonable) requirement for casting a vote with the addition of safeguards on the other side. It stops five fender-benders – fine. But I don’t agree the people on the other side experience any fender-benders at all.
That’s fine. That’s why were posting, after all.
Way too easy a set-up.
Racist.
I’m telling you – and readers – how I reached my conclusions. But you’re right, as I have conceded before – my anecdotes are not data.
But since I don’t have the burden of proof here, why should I care? Go ahead – disregard that anecdote.
We are still left with a bunch of states with Voter ID laws, and more coming. You act like I have to persuade you, or something. I’ve already won. You have to persuade me, and people like me, who already believe Voter ID is a good thing. There are a bunch of us, and you’re not doing such a hot job.
You keep doing that. You keep trying to make the argument about the validity of voter id. I don’t have anything against voter id, said so dozens of times, must have eluded you due to the density of my prose. Which, oddly, never seems to bother you when you have a ready rebuttal.
Voter ID is fine and dandy, so long as its not used as an excuse for a partisan exercise. Which this is, as you’ve already stipulated to. You want to pretend you can justify this crass cynicism as some sort of civic act we can all be proud of, you are welcome to try. How’s that going, so far?
But the sand is slipping though the hourglass, and the demographics are shifting against the Republicans. Would they even be trying this sort of shit if they felt secure? “Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin” reads the Handwriting on the wall. In Spanish its “Venceremos!” For many others, its “We shall overcome”.
True dat. Gloat while you can.
Completely OT, but out of curiosity, are you black? Being Hispanic does not necessarily mean non-white, of course.
Fantastic, as previous noted.
And yes, you have said quite often that don’t mind Voter ID as long as the motive is not partisan advantage. And my response to that has always been: I don’t care who gets the advantage. I care if the law makes sense.
And a law that makes it harder to vote for millions of people while protecting us from tens of fraudulent votes makes sense.
To Bricker, that is. Because he’s a partisan twat.
Yes, I believe he may have mentioned that.
No, I’d say more like cinnamon.
That CASA person who was breaking federal law urging illegal aliens to vote illegally? Did you turn her in? And how did you know they were illegal aliens? Did you use the same strict evidence protocols you used here, that is, insinuation and innuendo?
Because what you originally said, in GD, was (and I quote)…
Posted 5/29/2012 3:19PM
This story is much more interesting, the new, updated version. Then it was just people, now its illegal aliens. Did you come across more evidence in the meantime? Or just bring out the embellishment brush for a bit of touch up?
- ID requirements don’t stop large numbers of people from voting as has been pointed out numerous times before. It has the potential to prevent some people from voting, but you haven’t proven that they a) can’t get an ID or b) actually want to vote.
- Most countries have these requirements. Probably for shits and giggles in your view and not for any rational reason (and yet with these laws those countries have higher turnout at the elections…)
- Most people support these requirements.
You got this idea that having a requirement that most people can meet is somehow anathema to democracy and yet every time someone in this thread complains they say the requirement is to be a citizen of the country. You have already agreed that proving who you are is important. You’re just quibbling over how it is done and the level that needs to be met for proof.
The Texas voter-ID law is being challenged in federal court, BTW. And as Texas goes, so goes . . . well, Hell, I suppose.
Hmmm. I don’t recall cinnamon among the commonly used racial categories.
As I’ve said before, you are making it harder to vote, so it will incentivize some people to not vote.
Like if I put your refrigerator in your attic you will eat less. If you make it hard enough you will get some people to not vote.
You have ignored that most other countries have universal ID possession. We have a large underclass and shitty work conditions. We also have massively underfunded state governments, so it’s even harder to get IDs than it used to be. If I made you have to work eight hours to vote, you might not do it. That’s the point, they want to put a labor tax for the (largely Democratic voting) people who don’t have ID currently.
Because most people probably fall into the same mental trap that you are. Is it possible for most everyone to get ID? Sure. Is it enough work that many people simply won’t do it? Of course.
I think we should have universal ID in America. But black helicopter retards will fight it tooth and nail.
Primarily that was my inference all along. That is, telling citizens who HAVE papers that they don’t need papers to vote is useless.