And yet of the two of us, I can point to a number of times I have condemned Republicans, or taken a position contrary to Republican party planks.
So how is it that I am somehow operating from a partisan position, when you have not taken any positions against your favored party or its members, and I have?
I didn’t say it was a policy, you asked:
So I listed harsh words. Well, word.
Then you said:
Emphasis mine.
Then Skip said:
Then you said:
Which is a lie, because you’re the one who brought it up.
Why do you have to lie so much, Bricker?
He’s on to us, Skip, my faithful manservant that I’ve never talked to before!
You did, liar.
You specifically mention those times. I see no need to post to mention that I disavow some politico that I’ve never defended. If I were a strong Gov. Otter-head defender, I’d eat crow and say, well, I guess I was wrong about that. If I had previously seen the wisdom is freezer-based investments, I would have mentioned, “Hey, it seems like that wasn’t such a good idea after all.”
Is this homework now? Every time some Dem does something bad, I’m required to be like the old hag in The Princes Bride? “Booo, booo, booo. You had love in your hands and you gave it up, Governor or refuse, the Governor of slime…”
I’ve told you about three, four if you count what’s her head, the conspiracy theory lady from the house.
You can be a blind ideologue and still cut the weights holding you down. Obviously, Sen. John Ensign (they guy who slept with his best friend’s wife and then paid them off with money from his mom, and gave an illegal lobbying job to the husband) was a sinking ship in Nevada, and disavowing him is better for the party.
Now matter how many guys who get caught red-handed that you cut ties from, you still reflexively do the “you do it tooooo” thing. Which, I’d say, is the best evidence you’re a partisan ideologue.
Ok. True enough. I DID say “policy” first.
I cheerfully withdraw it.
But I would point out that what I did say, and you quote, was “Any post where you really had harsh words for a Democratic politician, pundit, or proposal.”
Blago and Jefferson were both Democratic politicians. Yes?
Not every time. Find me two posts. Just two.
Isn’t it amazing you can’t?
Yes, I’m sure that, now challenged, you will start crafting new posts. Can you point me to some harsh words from you towards any of them that predate my asking this question?
Bingo.
No, given what I said above, that I don’t see the need to disavow someone I haven’t defended. I don’t want criminals in the party. So I’m glad that when Democrats fuck up the Democrats themselves get rid of them. Unlike Ensign, that I mentioned above, who stayed in the Senate until he was about to be judged by the ethics committee.
As I say, your very argument is moronic.
I don’t feel the need to pile on when some Dem is found to be shitty. It’s not like they are generally allowed to remain in office. So you are asserting that because I don’t dogpile on Dems when they commit crimes I’m by necessity an unthinking partisan? That makes no sense at all. Lack of an affirmative action doesn’t mean that you’ve embraced the opposite. And it’s not like I’m defending the freezer guy or Blago.
Also, you are limiting the field to Dems that aren’t just agreeing with Republicans. So what I’m supposed to be hating them for again? But the real fact is that you’re trying to turn the focus so you can crawl away and lick your wounds.
Since I randomly recalled an incident, I’ll throw you a bone.
Are you or are you not aware of how often that has occurred? Are you or are you not aware of the other effects that this measure would have? Never mind, we know you are not so aware, Fox not having told you.
Unsurprisingly, after all these pages, you still haven’t actually grasped the fucking point of the thread. **Bricker **does, certainly, even if he chooses to lie about it (perhaps even to himself, and perhaps he is unable to choose not to). You, however, have proven extensively on this and other matters that you’re simply too thick.
It doesn’t matter how often it occurs. It should never occur. How is having your vote nullified any different than not being able to cast it in the first place?
This isn’t a criminal case where your innocence is presumed. This is the reverse. You don’t get to vote until you actively prove you have that right. In this case, the proof is a valid ID.
You say the numbers of the former are negligible. I’m saying the numbers of the later are negligible for those people who actually do wish to vote. The difference being is that the person who has his vote nullified has no redress - he can’t do a damned thing about it; whereas the person who does not have an ID has the ability to fix that situation even if it may be inconvenient for him to do so.
The reason why I pursued this line of reasoning was to question its use as an analogy, since I assumed that there was a federal law against trespass on private property (thus one wouldn’t be able to sleep in Bricker’s house without permission either), but I can’t find one.
Oooh, great example. On their face, of course not. They’re simply one of the " small, permissible burden[s]" you alluded to in this post. Of course, they’re subject to the Sorites paradox too and not everyone will agree whether we have a few disparate grains of sand or a heap. What I’d hope is that we can agree when a Republican hits on the notion that younger people are a Democratic demographic, that raising the voting age to 21 under the auspices of restricting the number of impulsive votes cast, while simultaneously making dog-whistle comments about how this’ll make their victory a shoo-in, that we’re staring at a dune and don’t merely have sand in our trans-v word.
A fair criticism. An honest analysis would cede that there are numerous factors affecting the turnout. Looking only at registered voters is not an accurate representation of the overall climate, since they’ll tend to be the most politically involved (assuming the numbers are for Congressional races, rather than primaries which may require voter registration). An increase in voting turnout as percentage of eligible population is enough to disprove the notion that voting laws will necessarily reduce turnout, of course (though not that they’ll increase confidence). Likewise, it should be evident that a lack of significant shifts in political demographics would indicate that voter ID laws did not prohibit significant numbers of ineligible voters from voting that had previously voted. That said, it may not be accurate to compare presidential election years with non-presidential election years, as voter turnout is under half during the non-presidential election years. An explanation for greater voter turnout among a minority group would be demographic shifts, but I can’t find any evidence supporting such a proposition in Georgia (at least, not within such a short time frame). Hispanic voters may be the wrong demographic to look at though, as it’s black people that make up the largest minority group in the state.
Cite? According to the Huff Post aggregate data, Romney hasn’t touched him. Course, complacency is just the break McCain’s campaign is looking for.
Ok, I alluded to the Zell Miller quote somewhat opaquely before in this very thread, here. Perhaps you missed it, a trivial point. It’s a matter of supreme hubris to even refer to the fact that a CIA agent was involved in a military coup of a democratic regime. To laud that fact is reprehensible, to me. Perhaps you were unaware that Georgios Papadopoulos was a fascist, presiding over mass arrests, censorship and torture of dissidents? That Lambrakis was murdered as a precursor to the coup and that those involved in the investigation of the murder died in police custody during the regime? If you were unaware of that fact, no problem, ignorance fought. If you were aware, I ask whether it is a sound foreign policy for the US to support fascist coups in order to prevent Communist governments with popular support from ascending to power.
and are you able to point to a single individual wronged? As Congressional elections rely on a simple plurality electoral system, it’s even more difficult to find such an individual. Given proportional representation, it’d be possible to demonstrate a fraction of people so wronged. At the moment, there is only a “hypothetically” swayed election (and the lack of severe demographic shifts in party representation in states implementing voter ID laws is evidence against widespread voter fraud, too).
Yeah, it’s not like a criminal case… Except in states where it is. Not that anyone used that analogy anyway.
Forgot to add:
Here’s the type of reactionary Democrat that Zell and NDD reminisce about.
Oh, yeah like Charlie Rangel, huh?
I mentioned Rangel. Then there’s Maxine Waters.Loretta Sanchez. They don’t count?
funny, you just quoted those three words. Why were you calling Stupak a silly cunt?
Anyone know why they would do such a thing? Seems to me, at first glance, that the Pubbies there would have a vested interest in dragging things out to the last ditch, maybe even past the election, in hopes of a fart accompli. Was it that they simply had no choice, did not want to be embarrassed when asked for evidence they can’t supply, and hope to win on other grounds?
I don’t get it. At last count, we had something like six or seven self-confessed lawyers here abouts, any of you guys got a clue?
I’m not sure how to respond. If you think I am insulted, I’m not. You see I hold you to be one the three worst contributors to the SDMB. In fact, I’d say that the only reason you’re not ranked higher is that you don’t post as much as the other two. Not in threads I read, anyway. Thank God. But lest you think I’m just trying to slap you back reflexively, let me add some specifics: it’s not just that you’re not very bright, it’s that you’re unaware of that fact. This often manifests itself in you so often finding it impossible to stay on track. When things get tight due to your cartoon thinking, you start arguing another point altogether. That means time spent up to that point was a waste. But with you’re being so unbright, you probably don’t even notice any of it.
I doubt that will be digested by you in the way that it should, but what the hell…
Precisely. I’d say that the government has two responsibilities: one is to make sure it is reasonably easy for those who want to vote, to vote. The other is to ensure that every vote cast is meaningful. That means ensuring that no illegal votes nullify yours.
For some of the reasons you mention, the latter is the far greater responsibility of the government.
The government does NOT have the responsibility to see to it that everyone votes. It is not incumbent upon them to devise a method of going door-to-door to every person and have them vote. It’s simply to ensure that there are no unreasonable obstacles. An election happens every four years. If the vast amount of people who don’t have an iID can’t manage to get one in those 1,461 days, then voting simply isn’t that important to them. For those who have serious hardships, accommodations can be made, as has been mentioned ad infinitum in this thread alone.
Boy, if I’m not one of the other two, I’m totally crying myself to sleep tonight. Better not be that little bitch BrainGlutton! I will rip his eyebrows off!
Excellent! This would be a real good time and place to post them all, all of those outreach “accomodations” that the Republicans are making! We sure heard plenty about them closing DMV offices, and tightening restrictions on voting days, and making it more difficult for voter registration drives, but nobody shows the other side of the story.
That is so unfair! The floor is yours, Mags, but try to keep the examples down to fifty or sixty or so.
Because of the Stupak Amendment. Look it up if you have the time, it’s a laugh riot.