OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PLAYS THE RACE CARD (AGAIN) !

[Budman]

Yea and all dems are to stupid to figure out how to get an ID.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Budman

Yea and all dems are to stupid to figure out how to get an ID.

That is wtf I been trying to tell you, that this ID law disenfranchises voters on the left!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Sorry, wasn't sure which list...but what you folks seem to be missing is this.

If you have x number of voter fraud without I D's. and your cure is to impose a law that will eliminate x but in doing so you then eliminate y number of voters....what have you really done?

The question ya'll are having difficuilty understanding is this:

If x = voter fraud and
y = disenfranchised voters

Here you have committed a formal fallacy: “x” is not the causation of “y”.

Back to the question posited above: “When you were not of age, were you able to buy more beers with or without your phony ID?” Perhaps you realize it’s a rhetorical question, because everybody here knows you wouldn’t have forked out the money for a phony ID if you could have purchased beer without one. Perhaps you also realize that your example has also torpedoed one tenet of your argument, i.e., that such a measure would not deter voter fraud. On the one hand you argue that even if positive ID were mandated, anyone could fabricate a phony ID and perpetrate voter fraud. That’s simply not true. The fact is, not everyone can fabricate a quality ID that would stand up to scrutiny. Though such a product can be made, it would require an investment of time and money that would deter most ordinary (and honest) people from trying. On the other hand, your argument substantiates our argument for positive ID because the real object lesson in your little illustration is that you couldn’t purchase beer until you showed an ID. Thus, you’ve admitted the requirement to provide positive ID does provide a measure of deterrent.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Here you have committed a formal fallacy: “x” is not the causation of “y”.

Yes it is, in the fact that the cure for x is the introduction of y

x = voter fraud

y = disenfranchised voters

z = total votes

a = legal votes

What we are talking about is which do you think the lesser of two evils.

z - x = a
or
z - y = a

That is the crux of the debate.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Back to the question posited above: “When you were not of age, were you able to buy more beers with or without your phony ID?” Perhaps you realize it’s a rhetorical question, because everybody here knows you wouldn’t have forked out the money for a phony ID if you could have purchased beer without one. Perhaps you also realize that your example has also torpedoed one tenet of your argument, i.e., that such a measure would not deter voter fraud. I said that it would not prevent total voter fraud. I say that it will just open the door to other type of fraud but my main supposition was that it would introduce disenfranchised voters into the equation.
On the one hand you argue that even if positive ID were mandated, anyone could fabricate a phony ID and perpetrate voter fraud. That’s simply not true. The fact is, not everyone can fabricate a quality ID that would stand up to scrutiny. Though such a product can be made, it would require an investment of time and money that would deter most ordinary (and honest) people from trying.
Just as the current system deter most ordinary (and honest) people from trying. There was no massive voter fraud. You had people incentivized to sign up dead people on the voter rolls but these dead folks were not voting . LOL There in fact was no massive voter fraud scheme.

On the other hand, your argument substantiates our argument for positive ID because the real object lesson in your little illustration is that you couldn’t purchase beer until you showed an ID. We actually used to borrow a DL that looked somewhat like us or we got that person to buy us beer.... or we stole it from out parents refridge. That is my point, with any one action there is an equal reaction. If drug laws worked....there would be no drugs! Thus, you’ve admitted the requirement to provide positive ID does provide a measure of deterrent.

Yes it does...it also disenfranchises voters.

We are back to which equation you think best for the country or your party or your sense of fairness or for your entertainment factor....
z - x = a
or
z - y = a

[CuteOldGuy]

How does it disenfranchise voters?

[WTF]

http://theweek.com/article/index/219...lion-americans

[CuteOldGuy]

A liberal rag publishes an op ed by a liberal think tank. Ok. I guess that settles it. Pretty damn objective.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

A liberal rag publishes an op ed by a liberal think tank. Ok. I guess that settles it. Pretty damn objective.

WTF are you talking about. The article gives both sides of the issue and cites sources. Below is the article in its entirety. It seems to state the facts and both sides spin. You ask a question, I get you the answer and then you bitch.

You need to change your name to SenileOldMan


Disenfranchising 5 million Americans?
A liberal think tank warns that a Republican anti-voter-fraud campaign is really a disguised effort to freeze out Democratic voters in 2012

A wave of new Republican-driven election laws will make it harder for millions of eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012, according to a report by New York University Law School's liberal Brennan Center for Justice. The restrictive changes — many in crucial battleground states — are so extensive that they could even tip a tight election, the liberal think tank says. Here, a brief guide to the new laws, and their potential effect:


What do the new laws change?
The most significant restriction requires Americans in several states to present state-issued photo IDs when they vote. The Brennan Center estimates that 3.3 million eligible voters in the affected states — Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin — don't have such IDs now. Other Americans would be affected by laws in Alabama, Texas, and Kansas requiring proof of citizenship when they register to vote, and by new restrictions on same-day voter registration in Florida, Texas, and Maine (which eliminated it entirely). Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia also cut back on early voting, and two states — Florida and Ohio — reversed earlier changes that had made it easier for convicted felons to recover their eligibility to vote.
Why did Republicans implement these laws?
The GOP made a big push to enact these laws after retaking several statehouses and governors' mansions last November. The Right says the new rules were needed to stamp out voter fraud. "There are enough proven cases in the past, throughout our history and recently, that show that you've got to take basic steps to prevent people from taking advantage of an election if they want to. Particularly close elections," says Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation, as quoted by The New York Times.
What do Democrats say?
The Left maintains that the election fraud problem essentially doesn't exist, and that the laws, all passed by Republicans, add up to a coordinated effort to suppress the Democratic vote. "The GOP fears losing in a fair fight," says Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, "so the party is trying to rig the game through voter suppression, plain and simple."
How would these laws hurt Democrats?
Overall, the 19 laws and two executive orders in 14 states that the Brennan Center analyzed affect more than 5 million voters. That's "a number larger than the margin of victory in two of the last three presidential elections," the Brennan Center notes. The new restrictions could "sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election," the think tank says, because the impact will "fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters" — groups that traditionally favor Democratic candidates. The states that have clamped down — including five of the nation's 12 most contested battleground states — hold 171 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yes it is, in the fact that the cure for x is the introduction of y

x = voter fraud

y = disenfranchised voters

z = total votes

a = legal votes

What we are talking about is which do you think the lesser of two evils.

z - x = a
or
z - y = a

That is the crux of the debate.




Yes it does...it also disenfranchises voters.

We are back to which equation you think best for the country or your party or your sense of fairness or for your entertainment factor....
z - x = a
or
z - y = a
We actually used to borrow a DL that looked somewhat like us or we got that person to buy us beer.... or we stole it from out parents refridge. That is my point, with any one action there is an equal reaction. If drug laws worked....there would be no drugs!

Your argument remains a formal fallacy: “x” is not the causation of “y”. The causation of "y" - should it occur - is individual irresponsibility.

BTW, your article offers no concrete proof that one person would be disenfranchised let alone 5 million.

Who is going to let someone borrow their ID and let that someone vote for them? You can't steal "votes" from a fridge.

The drug laws are not constructed to work; plus, when an administration tells you it's smuggling guns into Mexico as a way to stop the smuggling of drugs into the U.S. . . . well, that's just plain asinine.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is wtf I been trying to tell you, that this ID law disenfranchises voters on the left!

WTF, you do realize that smiley is a surrender smiley?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How does it disenfranchise voters?

voters who don't want to be bothered with getting ids, I gather. they're the ones who'll be disenfranchised.

[CuteOldGuy]

WTF, it's a liberal rag quoting a liberal think tank. You can call a turd a rose, but it is still a turd.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

WTF, it's a liberal rag quoting a liberal think tank. You can call a turd a rose, but it is still a turd.

ok you are a rose petal.

The article provided what the new laws are and reasons why each party is for and aganist.

That is a shit load better than anything you have ever provided, you stinking ass turd smelling rose you.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your argument remains a formal fallacy: “x” is not the causation of “y”. The causation of "y" - should it occur - is individual irresponsibility.

Now you are trying to tell me, getting old and being poor is some form of individual irresponsibility. Look, this is nothing more than a poll tax. Just a different version. Nobody has shown any form of massive voter fraud.

BTW, your article offers no concrete proof that one person would be disenfranchised let alone 5 million. That is because the law hasn't went into effect. Hard to prove that something will happen....but folks with a ounce of common sense can tell you wtf they think will happen.

You choose to ignore it. I get it, you would rather take the chance of voter disenfranchisment than voter fraud. I take the opposite stance.

Who is going to let someone borrow their ID and let that someone vote for them? You can't steal "votes" from a fridge.
Are you naive enough to think that folks will not find a way around this? You do realize that when folks feel disenfranchised they will revolt? That is wtf happened in the ME and it will happen here.

The drug laws are not constructed to work; plus, when an administration tells you it's smuggling guns into Mexico as a way to stop the smuggling of drugs into the U.S. . . . well, that's just plain asinine.

What is asinine is for a country to sell as many guns as we do and expect someone not to get shot ever now and then. Especially some Border Patrol agent that is up aganist folks that are making tons of money. I wish people would have cried for an investigation for say Pat Tillmans death , like they have this border agent. Personally, I do not think a one of you give a rats ass about the dead border agent. You do care about making political hay though.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Now you are trying to tell me, getting old and being poor is some form of individual irresponsibility.

Another of your formal fallacies.

Look, this is nothing more than a poll tax. Just a different version. Nobody has shown any form of massive voter fraud.

Posited above are a dozen documented incidents of massive voter fraud that have occurred during the history of this Republic. You have chosen to ignore or dismiss all of them out-of-hand. Furthermore, Google will easily give you scores of other example.

That is because the law hasn't went into effect. Hard to prove that something will happen....but folks with a ounce of common sense can tell you wtf they think will happen.

Your argument is all conjecture, and people receiving any state assistance, drawing unemployment, dependent on SS, Medicaid or Medicare have ID cards - it's a prerequisite to receiving those services. Hell, WalMart requires a picture ID to cash a check. Your entire argument is bogus.

You choose to ignore it. I get it, you would rather take the chance of voter disenfranchisment than voter fraud. I take the opposite stance.

Only those identified in the 14th Amendment will be disenfranchised.

Are you naive enough to think that folks will not find a way around this?

It's a hurdle for crooks. Right now there is almost nothing stopping those crooks.

You do realize that when folks feel disenfranchised they will revolt?

Only those identified in the 14th Amendment will be disenfranchised.

That is wtf happened in the ME and it will happen here.

???Maine???

What is asinine is for a country to sell as many guns as we do and expect someone not to get shot ever now and then. Especially some Border Patrol agent that is up aganist folks that are making tons of money. I wish people would have cried for an investigation for say Pat Tillmans death , like they have this border agent. Personally, I do not think a one of you give a rats ass about the dead border agent. You do care about making political hay though.

You were talking about ineffective drug laws . . . how the hell does Tillman's death relate to anything else in this thread?

..