Voter ID laws are...

[BoberFett]

Insinuating Bush was elected due to voter fraud?

As much as I don't like him, I seriously doubt it.

No, just pointing out that voting is more dangerous than gun ownership, but the left wants no limits on voting. No required ID, no competency tests. It's the Wild West for voting rights! Shoot 'em up! Bang bang!

 

[ivwshane]

No, just pointing out that voting is more dangerous than gun ownership, but the left wants no limits on voting. No required ID, no competency tests. It's the Wild West for voting rights! Shoot 'em up! Bang bang!

That damn constitution getting in the way again! Right?

 

[Newell Steamer]

Shoot 'em up! Bang bang!

You would make a terrible cowboy.

 

[fskimospy]

No, just pointing out that voting is more dangerous than gun ownership, but the left wants no limits on voting. No required ID, no competency tests. It's the Wild West for voting rights! Shoot 'em up! Bang bang!

The effects of a single individual using their vote unwisely are far smaller than the effects of someone using a gun unwisely.

This is one of the many reasons why we regulate different rights in different ways.

 

[BoberFett]

The effects of a single individual using their vote unwisely are far smaller than the effects of someone using a gun unwisely.

This is one of the many reasons why we regulate different rights in different ways.

Someone I have never met me dying doesn't affect me.

The vast volume of incompetent voters does.

You're looking at the potential impact of a single act while I'm looking at the impact of the aggregate effect of all acts.

 

[fskimospy]

Someone I have never met me dying doesn't affect me.

Yes, but it affects them. Hence, why we have restrictions.

The vast volume of incompetent voters does.

You're looking at the potential impact of a single act while I'm looking at the impact of the aggregate effect of all acts.

By what standard are you defining an incompetent voter? If it's based on issue knowledge, can you explain why issue knowledge should be required for people to choose their representation? What if they care about descriptive representation or something else instead? Etc, etc.

Regardless, primaries are already an affront to the democratic process and should be done away with entirely. The fact that someone might be subverting an already bad process is pretty meaningless.

 

[soundforbjt]

If the Right could come up with proof that voter id is needed, I'd be all for it...so far all I see as "proof" is their feeling that it's needed.

 

[nehalem256]

By what standard are you defining an incompetent voter? If it's based on issue knowledge, can you explain why issue knowledge should be required for people to choose their representation? What if they care about descriptive representation or something else instead? Etc, etc.

If voters want to vote based on which candidate is cuter who says that is a bad thing?

EDIT:

Descriptive representation is the idea that elected representatives in democracies should represent not only the expressed preferences of their constituencies (or the nation as a whole) but also those of their descriptive characteristics that are politically relevant, such as geographical area of birth, occupation, ethnicity, or gender. According to this idea, an elected body should resemble a representative sample of the voters they are meant to represent concerning outward characteristics—a constituency of 50% women and 20% blacks, for example, should have 50% female and 20% black legislators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_(politics)#Descriptive_representation

 

[BoberFett]

Yes, but it affects them. Hence, why we have restrictions.

And voting affects me, so I want restrictions. Why are you having such a hard time grasping this?

By what standard are you defining an incompetent voter? If it's based on issue knowledge, can you explain why issue knowledge should be required for people to choose their representation? What if they care about descriptive representation or something else instead? Etc, etc.

Regardless, primaries are already an affront to the democratic process and should be done away with entirely. The fact that someone might be subverting an already bad process is pretty meaningless.

You and your Democrats brethren quite clearly define almost any vote for a Republican as incompetent, so why don't you tell me?

 

[fskimospy]

And voting affects me, so I want restrictions. Why are you having such a hard time grasping this?

Good news, we already have them! It's always interesting to see the authoritarian side of conservatives come out when people don't vote or behave the way they want them to.

You and your Democrats brethren quite clearly define almost any vote for a Republican as incompetent, so why don't you tell me?

I don't think I have ever defined anyone as so incompetent as to have their right to vote taken away. Apparently you believe such a state exists for a significant percentage of the US. If you believe this, you must have some standard for determining it.

What is it?

 

[BoberFett]

Good news, we already have them!

Clearly they're not working, so we need more restrictions, just like "liberals" claim we need more gun laws.

It's always interesting to see the authoritarian side of conservatives come out when people don't vote or behave the way they want them to.

First, it's cute that numbskulls call me a conservative simply because they don't like my opinions, as though I fall in line with the typical conservative mindset.

Second, right back at ya. I find it interesting to see the authoritarian side of "liberals" come out when people. Which is ALL THE TIME. People aren't taking global warming seriously enough for you? We'll force them to switch light bulbs. People won't stop smoking? We'll tax the hell out of them. Drop the act, you're no saints when it comes to forcing people to fall in line.

I don't think I have ever defined anyone as so incompetent as to have their right to vote taken away. Apparently you believe such a state exists for a significant percentage of the US. If you believe this, you must have some standard for determining it.

What is it?

I'm not advocating competency tests, stop being so obtuse. I merely point out double standards. Democrats will twist logic to absurd shapes in order to defend their pet topics just as vociferously as the conservatives they detest. You and others claim there's no evidence of voter fraud and that requiring voter ID will not have any positive effect, but in fact a negative one. Fine, that's your argument. But then stop claiming that assault rifle bans and magazine limits will stop crime, as there's no evidence to suggest anything of the sort.

Accept that your side is guilty of like behavior and move on.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

And voting affects me, so I want restrictions. Why are you having such a hard time grasping this?



You and your Democrats brethren quite clearly define almost any vote for a Republican as incompetent, so why don't you tell me?

Clearly they're not working, so we need more restrictions, just like "liberals" claim we need more gun laws.



First, it's cute that numbskulls call me a conservative simply because they don't like my opinions, as though I fall in line with the typical conservative mindset.

Second, right back at ya. I find it interesting to see the authoritarian side of "liberals" come out when people. Which is ALL THE TIME. People aren't taking global warming seriously enough for you? We'll force them to switch light bulbs. People won't stop smoking? We'll tax the hell out of them. Drop the act, you're no saints when it comes to forcing people to fall in line.



I'm not advocating competency tests, stop being so obtuse. I merely point out double standards. Democrats will twist logic to absurd shapes in order to defend their pet topics just as vociferously as the conservatives they detest. You and others claim there's no evidence of voter fraud and that requiring voter ID will not have any positive effect, but in fact a negative one. Fine, that's your argument. But then stop claiming that assault rifle bans and magazine limits will stop crime, as there's no evidence to suggest anything of the sort.

Accept that your side is guilty of like behavior and move on.

...and here we have it.

"I don't like it, so I want more restrictions until only people like me vote."

 

[fskimospy]

Clearly they're not working, so we need more restrictions, just like "liberals" claim we need more gun laws.

First, it's cute that numbskulls call me a conservative simply because they don't like my opinions, as though I fall in line with the typical conservative mindset.

Second, right back at ya. I find it interesting to see the authoritarian side of "liberals" come out when people. Which is ALL THE TIME. People aren't taking global warming seriously enough for you? We'll force them to switch light bulbs. People won't stop smoking? We'll tax the hell out of them. Drop the act, you're no saints when it comes to forcing people to fall in line.

I'm not the one that claims to have a problem with forcing people to do things, so I have no idea what act that would be. I just find it amusing that people who constantly complain about the jackboot of government want government to put so many requirements on how people can express their preference on government.

I'm not advocating competency tests, stop being so obtuse. I merely point out double standards. Democrats will twist logic to absurd shapes in order to defend their pet topics just as vociferously as the conservatives they detest. You and others claim there's no evidence of voter fraud and that requiring voter ID will not have any positive effect, but in fact a negative one. Fine, that's your argument. But then stop claiming that assault rifle bans and magazine limits will stop crime, as there's no evidence to suggest anything of the sort.

Accept that your side is guilty of like behavior and move on.

Okay, what are you advocating then?

I don't think I've ever argued that assault weapons bans would reduce crime, so I can't help you with that.

 

[HomerJS]

If the Right could come up with proof that voter id is needed, I'd be all for it...so far all I see as "proof" is their feeling that it's needed.

They've NEVER had proof of widespread fraud. Right wing tactic is just keep saying it until they get enough people to believe.

They are very good at peddling bullshit.

 

[Moonbeam]

They've NEVER had proof of widespread fraud. Right wing tactic is just keep saying it until they get enough people to believe.

They are very good at peddling bullshit.

They have a strong herd instinct. If one believes they all become fanatics. It's part of he conservative brain gift that confers a mass response to outside threat, of which there isn't any, hence, why the gift at present is actually a defect.