Voter ID

[a777pilot]

Quick question:

If one has a government photo ID and registered to vote, BUT is not a US citizen, what good is this Photo ID presented at the time of voting? It solves nothing.

What are you Voter ID advocates going to do in the State of Oregon where voting is by mail? (Oregon like all other States does NOT required proof of citizenship to register to vote.)

 

[fskimospy]

1.) I assume they do have a job, just that it is under the table. If you are working illegally and not paying your income tax, I have no problem with denying you the vote.

2.) If they dont have a job, because they cant be assed to get an ID I have no problems denying them to right to vote, based on there clear position of fucking society over.

Ahh, so you are attempting to deny people the right to vote based upon groundless speculation about an unrelated activity. Well that's clearly a well thought out, not at all retarded position to take.

 

[nehalem256]

Of course, because they bought the Republican propaganda. Almost anyone will say "yes" if you ask them out of the blue, "Do you favor reducing election fraud by requiring voters to present ID when they vote?" After all, like you and me, the majority of Americans have drivers licenses themselves and have no clue that a significant subset of Americans do not. (Look how much it's taken to get you to even consider this fact.) Most Americans have no clue about how such laws disenfranchise many voters, nor that those voters tend to match a specific set of demographics. Most Americans have no idea that there is virtually no in-person voter fraud, and that photo ID laws won't really reduce fraud anyway.

In any case, popularity is not a reliable way to determine if something is right or wrong. I'll bet I can find dozens of issues where popular opinion runs contrary to yours. Right?

The difference is I dont go around claiming that other people disagree with me, because they are sheltered bigots, who have experienced different way of living. But if a bipartisan majority agrees with me... it should be obvious how your logic is flawed.

 

[Ausm]

This is not, repeat, NOT about Voter ID.

I bet you voted for obama, didn't you?

Then your thread title is misleading then...

 

[Bowfinger]

The difference is I dont go around claiming that other people disagree with me, because they are sheltered bigots, who have experienced different way of living. But if a bipartisan majority agrees with me... it should be obvious how your logic is flawed.

No sweetie, you're once again failing to offer a coherent, honest argument. Your insular, white bread life experience led you to finding it inconceivable people can live without a drivers license; your bigotry lead you to ASSume the minorities who do must be breaking the law. This is distinct from the "bipartisan majority" who support voter IDs. They were not asked either of those questions, i.e., if they believed it was nearly impossible to live without a DL and if they believed minorities who do must be working illegally.

In any case, popularity is not a reliable way to determine if something is right or wrong. There was a time when a bipartisan majority believed the Earth was flat. There was a time when a bipartisan majority believed smoking tobacco was relatively harmless. There was a time when a bipartisan majority believed Iraq still had huge WMD stockpiles. They were all wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

The difference is I dont go around claiming that other people disagree with me, because they are sheltered bigots, who have experienced different way of living. But if a bipartisan majority agrees with me... it should be obvious how your logic is flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[nehalem256]

No sweetie, you're once again failing to offer a coherent, honest argument. Your insular, white bread life experience led you to finding it inconceivable people can live without a drivers license;

And >70% of Americans agree with my insular white bread life experience.

your bigotry lead you to ASSume the minorities who do must be breaking the law. This is distinct from the "bipartisan majority" who support voter IDs. They were not asked either of those questions, i.e., if they believed it was nearly impossible to live without a DL and if they believed minorities who do must be working illegally.

You are the one who keeps dragging minorities into this. Lacking ID has NOTHING to do with being a minority. I assume that white people who lack ID would be engaged in the same type of activities as any minority. Because race is totally irrelevant to having ID.

 

[cybrsage]

You're lying again. If you are so incapable of presenting others' arguments accurately, perhaps you should learn to either respond directly to actual, unaltered quotes ... or STFU.

I noticed you did not refute the actual statement, just spouted idiotic ramblings.

Show me where I am wrong with this statement, be specific and not just post your usual "I am right, you are wrong, lalalalalala I am not listening to you" tripe.

You are claiming that no one is disenfranchised by having to go to a polling place or obtain, fill out, and return an absentee ballot. At the same time you are claiming that hordes of people are disenfranchised by having to go and get an ID.

 

[Bowfinger]

And >70% of Americans agree with my insular white bread life experience.

No, they don't, as has already been explained. Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it more true.

You are the one who keeps dragging minorities into this. Lacking ID has NOTHING to do with being a minority. I assume that white people who lack ID would be engaged in the same type of activities as any minority.

Yet you keep saying crap like this:

And why dont minorities have ID? Dont they need jobs like us white folks?

So basically you have to resort to personal attacks because you cant explain why either:

1.) Minorities dont need jobs

2.) Minorities can get jobs without ID.

What you are saying is you have no problem with minorities getting their money through less the legal means and that we should still allow them to participate in our Democracy.

Because race is totally irrelevant to having ID.

No, it's not. This has also already been covered. Minorities are statistically less likely to have drivers licenses than whites. It's a fact, whether you can grasp it or not.

 

[cybrsage]

You are the one who keeps dragging minorities into this. Lacking ID has NOTHING to do with being a minority. I assume that white people who lack ID would be engaged in the same type of activities as any minority. Because race is totally irrelevant to having ID.

He feels that only the elderly, poor, and minorities are too stupid or lazy to actually be able to obtain a photo ID. Everyone else can easily do it. This is the only logical reason why he says a law which is equally applied to everyone only harms these groups.

 

[cybrsage]

No, it's not. This has also already been covered. Minorities are statistically less likely to have drivers licenses than whites. It's a fact, whether you can grasp it or not.

WHY?

 

[Bowfinger]

I noticed you did not refute the actual statement, just spouted idiotic ramblings.

Show me where I am wrong with this statement, be specific and not just post your usual "I am right, you are wrong, lalalalalala I am not listening to you" tripe.

You are claiming that no one is disenfranchised by having to go to a polling place or obtain, fill out, and return an absentee ballot. At the same time you are claiming that hordes of people are disenfranchised by having to go and get an ID.

You're still lying. I did not claim what you pretend I claimed. If you are so incapable of presenting others' arguments accurately, perhaps you should learn to either respond directly to actual, unaltered quotes ... or STFU.

 

[Bowfinger]

He feels that only the elderly, poor, and minorities are too stupid or lazy to actually be able to obtain a photo ID. Everyone else can easily do it. This is the only logical reason why he says a law which is equally applied to everyone only harms these groups.

You're still lying. I did not claim what you pretend I claimed. If you are so incapable of presenting others' arguments accurately, perhaps you should learn to either respond directly to actual, unaltered quotes ... or STFU.

 

[cybrsage]

You refuse to clarify your statements, so others must do it for you. Even when presented with how I see your statement, you STILL do not actually clarify your position.

If you refuse to clearly state your positions, do not be surprised when others clarify it for you.


So what about my statement is incorrect? Or will you simply continue to refuse to clarify your position?

 

[Bowfinger]

WHY?

I don't know, yet it is a statistical fact. You must write them all letters and ask them why. Until you do I may stalk your every post, pedantically calling you a coward for not writing them, as if I were some sort of retarded parrot.

 

[Bowfinger]

You refuse to clarify your statements, so others must do it for you. Even when presented with how I see your statement, you STILL do not actually clarify your position.

If you refuse to clearly state your positions, do not be surprised when others clarify it for you.


So what about my statement is incorrect? Or will you simply continue to refuse to clarify your position?

If you are so incapable of presenting others' arguments accurately, perhaps you should learn to respond directly to actual, unaltered quotes. Your "clarifications" are invariably wrong, and usually blatantly dishonest. Indeed, you seem completely incapable of honest debate.

 

[cybrsage]

I did not alter any of your quotes. Yet I do clearly see you once again refused to clarify your position, meaning my clarification is the only thing I have to go on.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't know, yet it is a statistical fact. You must write them all letters and ask them why. Until you do I may stalk your every post, pedantically calling you a coward for not writing them, as if I were some sort of retarded parrot.

It is interesting that you call yourself a retarded parrot. Most people would not do that.

But onto your first sentence, you are placing the blame for not being able to vote on the law instead of on those who simply do not go out and get an ID. Yet you have no idea WHY they do not have IDs already.

Seems your entire argument is built on ignorance.

 

[hal2kilo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Kind of like a quote unquote news oganization that allows their news achors to say 'Some people say..."

 

[Bowfinger]

I did not alter any of your quotes. Yet I do clearly see you once again refused to clarify your position, meaning my clarification is the only thing I have to go on.

You responded to only a portion of my quote, and you responded with a straw man. You then continued to beat the straw man, claiming I said something I did not, while ignoring what I actually said. I will not indulge your compulsion to frame the discussion dishonestly. If you have any interest in honest discussion (which I sincerely doubt), feel free to go back to a comment I actually made and rebut it, directly, factually, accurately. Clue: offering false analogies, straw man arguments, and dishonest "clarifications" are not rebuttals. They are childish duhversions and serve only to demonstrate you recognize your position is fail.

 

[nehalem256]

You're still lying. I did not claim what you pretend I claimed. If you are so incapable of presenting others' arguments accurately, perhaps you should learn to either respond directly to actual, unaltered quotes ... or STFU.

He feels that Democrats are too stupid to obtain ID; that is why he cares. And considering that the Democrats already lost one election this Century because its voters were to stupid to successfully vote he is probably right.

 

[Bowfinger]

It is interesting that you call yourself a retarded parrot. Most people would not do that.

You're lying again. I did not call myself a retarded parrot. I said engaging in that hypothetical behavior would be as if a retarded parrot.

But onto your first sentence, you are placing the blame for not being able to vote on the law instead of on those who simply do not go out and get an ID. Yet you have no idea WHY they do not have IDs already.

Seems your entire argument is built on ignorance.

I am stating a fact. I do not have to understand the full diversity of reasons minorities are less likely to have DLs to accept that it is a fact. Similarly, all the reasons you wish it were not true do not change in the least that it is a fact.

Also, for the record, I did not say I "have no idea why they do not have IDs already." This is yet another example of you failing to "clarify" others' comments accurately. I offered a simple "I don't know" answer to a complex question, recognizing that though I do have many ideas about it, I do not know all of the countless factors in play. This is an example of recognizing the difference between opinion and speculation vs. fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

He feels that Democrats are too stupid to obtain ID; that is why he cares. And considering that the Democrats already lost one election this Century because its voters were to stupid to successfully vote he is probably right.

You're also lying again. I do not feel that. Since you are a newb here, let me point you to the Forum Rules thread stickied at the top of the page. Deliberately lying about others' comments is against the rules, even though Cybrsage seems to be immune to this. You may not be so lucky if you continue.

Beyond the rules, I'll also point out that engaging in such dishonest arguments only serves to destroy your credibility and undermine your argument. If you are unable to support your position honestly and factually, it would be better for you to withdraw rather than flailing about, desperately trying to salvage a failure. Or, even better, if you'd like to improve your credibility and demonstrate personal integrity, you can publicly acknowledge your initial errors and demonstrate you can learn and change your position when presented with new information.

 

[cybrsage]

Also, for the record, I did not say I "have no idea why they do not have IDs already." This is yet another example of you failing to "clarify" others' comments accurately. I offered a simple "I don't know" answer to a complex question, recognizing that though I do have many ideas about it, I do not know all of the countless factors in play. This is an example of recognizing the difference between opinion and speculation vs. fact.

Then post what you DO know. You posted nothing but "I don't know".

What is your idea as to why these groups do not have IDs, and will not go and get them so they can vote?

 

[cybrsage]

You responded to only a portion of my quote, and you responded with a straw man. You then continued to beat the straw man, claiming I said something I did not, while ignoring what I actually said. I will not indulge your compulsion to frame the discussion dishonestly. If you have any interest in honest discussion (which I sincerely doubt), feel free to go back to a comment I actually made and rebut it, directly, factually, accurately. Clue: offering false analogies, straw man arguments, and dishonest "clarifications" are not rebuttals. They are childish duhversions and serve only to demonstrate you recognize your position is fail.

So you refuse to clarify your statements and it is MY fault YOU did not do so? Hmmm....

I cannot have a discussion with you when you refuse to actually clarify your position, but instead repeatedly say you will not say what you mean.