Voter ID

[Pens1566]

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. I opened an account with an Internet bank about three years ago and wasn't asked for a DL.

It's an interesting shift in perspectives for me. Although I recognize there are many people who get along fine without state photo IDs, I'd been looking at is as mostly an artifact of the old days. I think about it as more of a small town, very personal, old-fashioned way of conducting business. But I see now it's also the wave of the future. As more and more of our life moves online there will be less demand for in-person IDs. Instead, more and more of our business will be handled remotely with electronic identity validation rather than a physical ID.

This wasn't an internet only bank. It's a large mid-atlantic bank chain that I just happened to open the account through their online process.

 

[cybrsage]

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.

A lie is when something wrong is said when the person saying it knows it is wrong. I ask you for clarification, to show WHERE I am wrong with regards to what I said about your position, but you refuse to do so. Since I believe what I typed it true, it is not a lie. It could be wrong, but it is not a lie. When you refuse to show me where it is wrong, you are not helping yourself any.

Simply clarify your position, show where I am wrong wrt what I said about your position. Until you do, I have no other logical recourse but to continue with my view of your position.

 

[nehalem256]

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.

Third, it is a simple, statistical fact that a certain American demographic is disproportionately more likely to lack the state photo ID mandated by these laws. This demographic includes the elderly, the poor, minorities, and students. This demographic is statistically more likely to vote for Democrats

Where is the lie. You believe Democratic voters are unable to obtain despite it being a simple thing that millions of American's are able to do.

Once again, your insular, white bread life is not at all representative of the broad cross section of people and personal situations across America. Your lack of life experience and bigotry against those unlike you in no way revokes others Constitutional right to vote.

But I guess personal attack are ok?

 

[Bowfinger]

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?

No. This was discussed in the other threads. You participated in those threads. If you didn't learn anything then, there's no reason to believe this time will be any different. I have neither the time nor the interest in trying to educate someone who doesn't want to learn.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

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.

 

[a777pilot]

Then your thread title is misleading then...

Yes, it is. It was done on purpose to get people to read the thread. I guess that was a mistake. Apparently few of you can see the real problem.

 

[Bowfinger]

This wasn't an internet only bank. It's a large mid-atlantic bank chain that I just happened to open the account through their online process.

Understood. In my case it was, but I realize virtually all banks now offer a full slate of online services, including opening accounts. I think this is a good example of why a physical drivers license is actually becoming less necessary to life as commerce becomes increasingly virtualized.

 

[Bowfinger]

A lie is when something wrong is said when the person saying it knows it is wrong. I ask you for clarification, to show WHERE I am wrong with regards to what I said about your position, but you refuse to do so. Since I believe what I typed it true, it is not a lie. It could be wrong, but it is not a lie. When you refuse to show me where it is wrong, you are not helping yourself any.

Simply clarify your position, show where I am wrong wrt what I said about your position. Until you do, I have no other logical recourse but to continue with my view of your position.

Unless you are Nehalem256 -- a possibility that's certainly crossed my mind -- I wasn't talking to you in the comment you quoted. In his case the lies were, "He feels that Democrats are too stupid to obtain ID; that is why he cares." Both halves of that statement are false. There is nothing I said suggesting either was true. It was therefore a deliberate misrepresentation of fact.

 

[nehalem256]

Understood. In my case it was, but I realize virtually all banks now offer a full slate of online services, including opening accounts. I think this is a good example of why a physical drivers license is actually becoming less necessary to life as commerce becomes increasingly virtualized.

Right, I have opened a bank account online

For example Coulee Bank,

http://www.couleebank.net/personal/savings/

Despite being online it STILL requires ID

Accepting:
Driver's License
Military ID
Passport
Permanent Resident Card
State ID

 

[Bowfinger]

Where is the lie. You believe Democratic voters are unable to obtain despite it being a simple thing that millions of American's are able to do.

Interesting that although you deny you lied, your second version of what I believe is remarkably less inflammatory than your first: "He feels that Democrats are too stupid to obtain ID; that is why he cares." It seems to me you understand exactly where you lied. Note that in fact I made no suggestion about why these demographics are less likely to have drivers licenses. I simply presented that as factual information.

For the record, your second version is also inaccurate, though it's certainly much closer. I am, however, quite tired of going over the same ground we've covered in other threads so I won't address it here. Suffice it to say it is irrelevant to the root issue, that photo voter ID laws do not materially improve election integrity but do disenfranchise a substantial number of Americans, a disproportionate number of whom are represented in demographics that tend to vote Democratic.

But I guess personal attack are ok?

What personal attack? Pointing out you lied was an objective statement of fact. You stated things about me that were not true.

Pointing out that you apparently lead a relatively insular life is not intended as an insult. It was simply an observation based on your continued insistence that you couldn't see how people can live legitimately without a DL. Many Americans live relatively insular lives, especially in rural areas and in ethnically homogeneous sections of cities. Some are born and die in the same basic area, without ever experiencing the diversity of America. It's not an insult. It just means they have a narrow range of life experiences.

 

[Bowfinger]

Right, I have opened a bank account online

For example Coulee Bank,

http://www.couleebank.net/personal/savings/

Despite being online it STILL requires ID

Accepting:
Driver's License
Military ID
Passport
Permanent Resident Card
State ID

OK? So what? Once again, your individual experiences do not represent the whole of America. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

 

[CWRMadcat]

No. It mentions a right to vote, period. This means that such activity is protected to a higher level than other activities. I do find it interesting that you are now reading new rights into the Constitution though, are you sure as a presumably right wing person that you want to do that? Anyways, your argument is silly. Your right to life is in fact protected by the Constitution, and depriving someone of breathing or water would infringe upon that. I am unaware of any right guaranteed by the Constitution that being employed is a prerequisite for. Can you give me one?

Millions of Americans do so every day, and do so legally. This is common knowledge, but your question is irrelevant anyway. You wish to restrict the right to vote by adding more requirements. It is now incumbent upon you to explain why such a thing is a good idea, hopefully producing valid statistical evidence to support your case. The people you are attempting to suppress are under no obligation to explain why you shouldn't suppress them, the burden of proof is on you.

Justify this law. Use statistics, not anecdotes. If you can't provide evidence, explain why you wish to add additional layers of regulation based on nothing. Better yet, explain why the lawmakers pushing for voter ID laws want them to be enforced while ignoring the real avenue for voter fraud which is absentee ballots. (which of course have no ID requirement) If you can think of a single reason they would do that outside of suppressing unfriendly constituencies, I'd love to hear it.

I'd like to see a good response to this, as I've yet to read anything worthwhile in the last eight pages or so.

 

[a777pilot]

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

LOL!

Why is it so difficult for you and others to understand that ID's are not the solution to illegal voting?

I guess this is just another example of the Democrats spinning this issue to a solution that is not a solution. Oh, yes, the Republicans also. In fact especially the Republicans.

The Republican solution is to have everyone that votes to show a government photo ID. LOL! That's like going to a doctor because you have a cancer and the doctor puts a cast on your left arm. It's a good solution, if you have a broken left arm, but does nothing to solve the cancer.

We have a cancer.



Idiots.

 

[cybrsage]

No. This was discussed in the other threads. You participated in those threads. If you didn't learn anything then, there's no reason to believe this time will be any different. I have neither the time nor the interest in trying to educate someone who doesn't want to learn.

In the other threads, you more or less said "cause I said so". Not good enough.

So are you ever going to clarify your position on why you feel it is ok to disenfranchise people by forcing them to either request, obtain, fill out, and return absentee ballots or be forced to travel to a polling place?

 

[cybrsage]

Unless you are Nehalem256 -- a possibility that's certainly crossed my mind -- I wasn't talking to you in the comment you quoted. In his case the lies were, "He feels that Democrats are too stupid to obtain ID; that is why he cares." Both halves of that statement are false. There is nothing I said suggesting either was true. It was therefore a deliberate misrepresentation of fact.

None of what you just said changes the meaning of the word "lie". You quoted me explaining it to you, then ignored what you quoted. It still goes back to you refusing to clarify your positions, thereby causing others to have to guess at it. When they do, you claim they are telling lies, but still refuse to say what you actually meant.

 

[Bowfinger]

LOL!

Why is it so difficult for you and others to understand that ID's are not the solution to illegal voting?

I guess this is just another example of the Democrats spinning this issue to a solution that is not a solution. Oh, yes, the Republicans also. In fact especially the Republicans.

The Republican solution is to have everyone that votes to show a government photo ID. LOL! That's like going to a doctor because you have a cancer and the doctor puts a cast on your left arm. It's a good solution, if you have a broken left arm, but does nothing to solve the cancer.

We have a cancer.



Idiots.

I believe that is the same point many opponents of photo voter ID laws made, myself included. If you want to discuss the specific issue of Arizona's registration law, I suggest you try a new thread, only this time don't mention "Voter ID" at all. Instead, make your thread title more specific and accurate. Like it or not, your "Voter ID" thread has focused on voter IDs.

 

[Bowfinger]

In the other threads, you more or less said "cause I said so". Not good enough.

I don't remember what I specifically said (and I seriously doubt you actually checked), but I do know we collectively have discussed many of the reasons certain people do not have valid IDs. If you didn't see this, try harder. Or don't. I don't care. As I've pointed out repeatedly, it is not relevant to the issue. The facts are what they are, whether you wish them to be so or not.

So are you ever going to clarify your position on why you feel it is ok to disenfranchise people by forcing them to either request, obtain, fill out, and return absentee ballots or be forced to travel to a polling place?

No. What part of, "I will not indulge your compulsion to frame the discussion dishonestly." is too hard for you? Troll someone else because I'm not biting.

 

[a777pilot]

I believe that is the same point many opponents of photo voter ID laws made, myself included. If you want to discuss the specific issue of Arizona's registration law, I suggest you try a new thread, only this time don't mention "Voter ID" at all. Instead, make your thread title more specific and accurate. Like it or not, your "Voter ID" thread has focused on voter IDs.

It was my thread. I am the OP.

Instead of just reading the title and jumping to conclusions why not read what I said and discuss the issue at hand? Or is that asking too much?

ROFLMAO!




p.s., Key word....."was".

 

[cybrsage]

I don't remember what I specifically said (and I seriously doubt you actually checked), but I do know we collectively have discussed many of the reasons certain people do not have valid IDs. If you didn't see this, try harder. Or don't. I don't care. As I've pointed out repeatedly, it is not relevant to the issue. The facts are what they are, whether you wish them to be so or not.

You show no facts, you say "cause I say so". Not good enough.

No. What part of, "I will not indulge your compulsion to frame the discussion dishonestly." is too hard for you? Troll someone else because I'm not biting.

The part where you then claim I am lying about things you refuse to clarify.

So we are left with you providing tacit agreement that you say it is OK to disenfranchise people when you agree with it, but not OK when you do not agree with it. Pretty bad ground to stand upon as it has already started caving in on you.

 

[Bowfinger]

None of what you just said changes the meaning of the word "lie".

Nor did I attempt to. Insinuating otherwise is dishonest.

You quoted me explaining it to you, then ignored what you quoted.

Also false.

It still goes back to you refusing to clarify your positions, thereby causing others to have to guess at it.

Another falsehood. You keep demanding I clarify your dishonest caricature of a position you insist I must hold, i.e., your straw man. I've repeatedly told you it is a straw man, and I won't address it. Why do you continue to lie about this after being called out for it repeatedly?

When they do, you claim they are telling lies, but still refuse to say what you actually meant.

Yet another lie. I answered your post directly and accurately. You quoted my response to another person and asked where the lie was. I quoted the exact words and explained why they were lies. That you cannot or will not understand this is your defect, not mine.

 

[Bowfinger]

It was my thread. I am the OP.

Instead of just reading the title and jumping to conclusions why not read what I said and discuss the issue at hand? Or is that asking too much?

ROFLMAO!




p.s., Key word....."was".

Please be clear. I absolutely understand this. Nonetheless, your thread immediately went in a different direction. That's a fact. I was simply offering a suggestion on how you might be able to get a conversation going about the Arizona law, since your first try did not.

 

[Bowfinger]

You show no facts, you say "cause I say so". Not good enough.

What part of "I don't care" exceeds your grasp?

The part where you then claim I am lying about things you refuse to clarify.

So we are left with you providing tacit agreement that you say it is OK to disenfranchise people when you agree with it, but not OK when you do not agree with it. Pretty bad ground to stand upon as it has already started caving in on you.

You're still lying. Moreover, you're incredibly tedious. Here:

/cookie

Now go play.

 

[cybrsage]

Also false.

Now you are straight up lying. You most certainly DID quote me explaining what a lie is.

Another falsehood. You keep demanding I clarify your dishonest caricature of a position you insist I must hold, i.e., your straw man. I've repeatedly told you it is a straw man, and I won't address it. Why do you continue to lie about this after being called out for it repeatedly?

You keep pretending a lie means something other than it means. Until you clarify you position, you have are falling deeper into the crumbling ground.

Yet another lie. I answered your post directly and accurately. You quoted my response to another person and asked where the lie was. I quoted the exact words and explained why they were lies. That you cannot or will not understand this is your defect, not mine.

Nope. You still refuse to state your actual position. Simply state how you can support the disenfranchisement of the eldery, poor, and minorities in one instance but be against it in the other.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'd like to see a good response to this, as I've yet to read anything worthwhile in the last eight pages or so.

Indeed. It's a great point that has been actively ignored by those intent on obfuscating discussion.

 

[cybrsage]

What part of "I don't care" exceeds your grasp?

The part where you claim I am lying.

You're still lying. Moreover, you're incredibly tedious. Here:

/cookie

Now go play.

Still refusing to clarify your position, yet claiming that others are lying about the position you refuse to clarify. Now you are becoming condenscending about your own refusal to clarify....acting like you are now too good to do it.

Wow.