Surely you aren't saying that a lack of I'd is a barrier to voting.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
What if I left you Super Bowl tickets at will call but lets make it illegal to require an I'd for you to pick them up...but we'll announce to everyone that the tickets are there....I hope you get there first...good luck with that...don't come crying if some joe schmo beats you to them.
I remember when my great grand dad showed his DL in 1876 so he could vote.
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Wtf?
Surely you aren't saying that a lack of I'd is a barrier to voting.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
What if I left you Super Bowl tickets at will call but lets make it illegal to require an I'd for you to pick them up...but we'll announce to everyone that the tickets are there....I hope you get there first...good luck with that...don't come crying if some joe schmo beats you to them.
I remember when my great grand dad showed his DL in 1876 so he could vote.
Surely you aren't saying that a lack of I'd is a barrier to voting.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
What if I left you Super Bowl tickets at will call but lets make it illegal to require an I'd for you to pick them up...but we'll announce to everyone that the tickets are there....I hope you get there first...good luck with that...don't come crying if some joe schmo beats you to them.
I didn't realize that one has a constitutional right to super bowl tickets without interference.
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Wtf?
Surely you aren't saying that a lack of I'd is a barrier to voting.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
What if I left you Super Bowl tickets at will call but lets make it illegal to require an I'd for you to pick them up...but we'll announce to everyone that the tickets are there....I hope you get there first...good luck with that...don't come crying if some joe schmo beats you to them.
I didn't realize that one has a constitutional right to super bowl tickets without interference.
Advance voting is allowed to increase voter turnout because some voters may be unavailable on election day. Acturally, low turnout is a bigger problem than voter fraud which has proven to be very rare based on extensive government investigations.
There are reasons why voter ID laws are bad. First, wrong for politicians to place restrictions on eligible voters for their own personal gain. Second, unfair discrimination against thousands of eligible voters who lack government ID such as poor and young people. Third, cost of getting ID for eligible voter and taxpayers if free ID is provided. Fourth, photo ID doesn't stop fraud. Most fraud found to be errors by election workers.
You keep using the term "eligible voters". How would you determine if a person is an eligible voter? You say that voting is a "right". Felons do not have a right to vote. Minors do not have a right to vote. Non-citizens do not have a right to vote. Doesn't the "eligible voter" have a right to a free and fair election without fraud? Why would low turnout be a problem, unless you have an agenda? Reasons why ID laws are good. First, wrong for politicians to place no restrictions on ineligible voters for their own personal gain. Second, citizens with no ID will have a reason to get an ID. Really, if you don't have an ID, get one. Third, cost for getting ID for eligible voters is money well spent. Forth, photo ID doesn't stop fraud, but it will stop most of the fraud. That is like saying locks don't stop thieves so let's not have locks.
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Advance voting is allowed to increase voter turnout because some voters may be unavailable on election day. Acturally, low turnout is a bigger problem than voter fraud which has proven to be very rare based on extensive government investigations.
There are reasons why voter ID laws are bad. First, wrong for politicians to place restrictions on eligible voters for their own personal gain. Second, unfair discrimination against thousands of eligible voters who lack government ID such as poor and young people. Third, cost of getting ID for eligible voter and taxpayers if free ID is provided. Fourth, photo ID doesn't stop fraud. Most fraud found to be errors by election workers.
You keep using the term "eligible voters". How would you determine if a person is an eligible voter? You say that voting is a "right". Felons do not have a right to vote. Minors do not have a right to vote. Non-citizens do not have a right to vote. Doesn't the "eligible voter" have a right to a free and fair election without fraud? Why would low turnout be a problem, unless you have an agenda? Reasons why ID laws are good. First, wrong for politicians to place no restrictions on ineligible voters for their own personal gain. Second, citizens with no ID will have a reason to get an ID. Really, if you don't have an ID, get one. Third, cost for getting ID for eligible voters is money well spent. Forth, photo ID doesn't stop fraud, but it will stop most of the fraud. That is like saying locks don't stop thieves so let's not have locks.
I completely agree with the principle generally articulated with the right wing which is that you cannot infringe upon a constitutional right because of the few people that do not follow the current laws.
I completely agree with the principle generally articulated with the right wing which is that you cannot infringe upon a constitutional right because of the few people that do not follow the current laws.
I completely agree with the principle generally articulated with the right wing which is that you cannot infringe upon a constitutional right because of the few people that do not follow the current laws.
You mean the right to a free and fair election, right?
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
I completely agree with the principle generally articulated with the right wing which is that you cannot infringe upon a constitutional right because of the few people that do not follow the current laws.
You mean the right to a free and fair election, right?
A well educated person understands that constitutional rights are individualistic in notion. Thus, the right you referenced above does not exist.
Similar to when the right points out that there is no inherent constitutional right to a safe nation, but there is a right to bare arms.
There is an expectation for a safe nation, even if there are those who try to destroy it. There is an expectation for a free and fair election. Even a well educated person such as yourself can understand that.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
A well educated person understands that constitutional rights are individualistic in notion. Thus, the right you referenced above does not exist.
Similar to when the right points out that there is no inherent constitutional right to a safe nation, but there is a right to bare arms.
There is an expectation for a safe nation, even if there are those who try to destroy it. There is an expectation for a free and fair election. Even a well educated person such as yourself can understand that.
There is an expectation for a safe nation, even if there are those who try to destroy it. There is an expectation for a free and fair election. Even a well educated person such as yourself can understand that.
Hmmmmm....
Interesting argument and I might be inclined to agree with you. Based on what you are saying, I might have to rethink my longstanding argument that the greater good cannot trump an individual right and thus, gun restrictions can still be constitutional.
Thank you for the insight.
Quote Originally Posted by Balph:
There is an expectation for a safe nation, even if there are those who try to destroy it. There is an expectation for a free and fair election. Even a well educated person such as yourself can understand that.
Hmmmmm....
Interesting argument and I might be inclined to agree with you. Based on what you are saying, I might have to rethink my longstanding argument that the greater good cannot trump an individual right and thus, gun restrictions can still be constitutional.
Interesting argument and I might be inclined to agree with you. Based on what you are saying, I might have to rethink my longstanding argument that the greater good cannot trump an individual right and thus, gun restrictions can still be constitutional.
Thank you for the insight.
You watch too much Star Trek.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Hmmmmm....
Interesting argument and I might be inclined to agree with you. Based on what you are saying, I might have to rethink my longstanding argument that the greater good cannot trump an individual right and thus, gun restrictions can still be constitutional.
Comments like this, clearly without forethought, are what drives your overall record to 2-13.
Unless of course you can show where a constitutional right was written or implied in regards to the super bowl analogy.
Well, since you are engaged in self-professed victories, I have no chance. But I'll try and pick up the pieces and move on with this:
Voting is a constitutional right. To infringe that process, one would need to examine using strict scrutiny and the burden for infringement remains extremely high.
Your argument is that it is akin to requesting an ID for someone is is claiming tickets, yet in such a scenario, there is no strict scrutiny, thus there is no infringement.
That is probably the best I can do under such toughly scored conditions.
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Comments like this, clearly without forethought, are what drives your overall record to 2-13.
Unless of course you can show where a constitutional right was written or implied in regards to the super bowl analogy.
Well, since you are engaged in self-professed victories, I have no chance. But I'll try and pick up the pieces and move on with this:
Voting is a constitutional right. To infringe that process, one would need to examine using strict scrutiny and the burden for infringement remains extremely high.
Your argument is that it is akin to requesting an ID for someone is is claiming tickets, yet in such a scenario, there is no strict scrutiny, thus there is no infringement.
That is probably the best I can do under such toughly scored conditions.
Voting is a constitutional right. However, such rights are not absolute. The United States has a compelling interest in the integrity of the electoral process and narrowly drawn regulations designed to ensure that only those entitled to cast votes can do so would undoubtedly be upheld. That is not subject to debate. Period.
Voting is a constitutional right. However, such rights are not absolute. The United States has a compelling interest in the integrity of the electoral process and narrowly drawn regulations designed to ensure that only those entitled to cast votes can do so would undoubtedly be upheld. That is not subject to debate. Period.
Voting is a constitutional right. However, such rights are not absolute. The United States has a compelling interest in the integrity of the electoral process and narrowly drawn regulations designed to ensure that only those entitled to cast votes can do so would undoubtedly be upheld. That is not subject to debate. Period.
No rights are absolute. The question as to what is narrowly tailored and what are compelling interests are always debatable and as such, Courts have generally not upheld voter ID laws.
Whether these cases show that your statement that regulations designed to ensure that only those entitled to cast votes would undoubtedly be upheld is incorrect is probably a matter of determining whether the laws in question exceeded the narrowly tailored boundary or if the laws did not serve a compelling state interest.
But your argument has led me to rethink my position that gun laws are inherently unconstitutional.
After all,
The right to bare arms is a constitutional right. However, such rights are not absolute. The United States has a compelling interest in the safety of its citizens and narrowly drawn regulations designed to ensure that only those who will bare such arms do not present a threat to safety will undoubtedly be upheld. That is not subject to debate. Period.
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:
Voting is a constitutional right. However, such rights are not absolute. The United States has a compelling interest in the integrity of the electoral process and narrowly drawn regulations designed to ensure that only those entitled to cast votes can do so would undoubtedly be upheld. That is not subject to debate. Period.
No rights are absolute. The question as to what is narrowly tailored and what are compelling interests are always debatable and as such, Courts have generally not upheld voter ID laws.
Whether these cases show that your statement that regulations designed to ensure that only those entitled to cast votes would undoubtedly be upheld is incorrect is probably a matter of determining whether the laws in question exceeded the narrowly tailored boundary or if the laws did not serve a compelling state interest.
But your argument has led me to rethink my position that gun laws are inherently unconstitutional.
After all,
The right to bare arms is a constitutional right. However, such rights are not absolute. The United States has a compelling interest in the safety of its citizens and narrowly drawn regulations designed to ensure that only those who will bare such arms do not present a threat to safety will undoubtedly be upheld. That is not subject to debate. Period.
Well, since you are engaged in self-professed victories, I have no chance. But I'll try and pick up the pieces and move on with this:
Voting is a constitutional right. To infringe that process, one would need to examine using strict scrutiny and the burden for infringement remains extremely high.
Your argument is that it is akin to requesting an ID for someone is is claiming tickets, yet in such a scenario, there is no strict scrutiny, thus there is no infringement.
That is probably the best I can do under such toughly scored conditions.
I guess you will need to articulate why you see a reasonable request to prove ones Identity qualifies as an infringement on the right to vote.
I guarantee you that you would not be able to pick up super bowl tickets at will call without a qualified ID which protects the true owner of the tickets and does not infringe.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Well, since you are engaged in self-professed victories, I have no chance. But I'll try and pick up the pieces and move on with this:
Voting is a constitutional right. To infringe that process, one would need to examine using strict scrutiny and the burden for infringement remains extremely high.
Your argument is that it is akin to requesting an ID for someone is is claiming tickets, yet in such a scenario, there is no strict scrutiny, thus there is no infringement.
That is probably the best I can do under such toughly scored conditions.
I guess you will need to articulate why you see a reasonable request to prove ones Identity qualifies as an infringement on the right to vote.
I guarantee you that you would not be able to pick up super bowl tickets at will call without a qualified ID which protects the true owner of the tickets and does not infringe.
I guess you will need to articulate why you see a reasonable request to prove ones Identity qualifies as an infringement on the right to vote.
I guarantee you that you would not be able to pick up super bowl tickets at will call without a qualified ID which protects the true owner of the tickets and does not infringe.
You're right and nor should I. I don't have a constitutional right to pick up tickets absent ID.
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
I guess you will need to articulate why you see a reasonable request to prove ones Identity qualifies as an infringement on the right to vote.
I guarantee you that you would not be able to pick up super bowl tickets at will call without a qualified ID which protects the true owner of the tickets and does not infringe.
You're right and nor should I. I don't have a constitutional right to pick up tickets absent ID.
No rights are absolute. The question as to what is narrowly tailored and what are compelling interests are always debatable and as such, Courts have generally not upheld voter ID laws.
Whether these cases show that your statement that regulations designed to ensure that only those entitled to cast votes would undoubtedly be upheld is incorrect is probably a matter of determining whether the laws in question exceeded the narrowly tailored boundary or if the laws did not serve a compelling state interest.
But your argument has led me to rethink my position that gun laws are inherently unconstitutional.
After all,
The right to bare arms is a constitutional right. However, such rights are not absolute. The United States has a compelling interest in the safety of its citizens and narrowly drawn regulations designed to ensure that only those who will bare such arms do not present a threat to safety will undoubtedly be upheld. That is not subject to debate. Period.
All this blather on your statement that there is a constitutional right to go sleeveless ? With a blinking light bulb suggesting you know what you're talking about ? How hysterically ironic ! I doubt you'll find much of a threat in any American "baring" their arms, although the thought of Hillary doing such a thing is enough to strike fear in the hearts of most Americans.
Period.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
No rights are absolute. The question as to what is narrowly tailored and what are compelling interests are always debatable and as such, Courts have generally not upheld voter ID laws.
Whether these cases show that your statement that regulations designed to ensure that only those entitled to cast votes would undoubtedly be upheld is incorrect is probably a matter of determining whether the laws in question exceeded the narrowly tailored boundary or if the laws did not serve a compelling state interest.
But your argument has led me to rethink my position that gun laws are inherently unconstitutional.
After all,
The right to bare arms is a constitutional right. However, such rights are not absolute. The United States has a compelling interest in the safety of its citizens and narrowly drawn regulations designed to ensure that only those who will bare such arms do not present a threat to safety will undoubtedly be upheld. That is not subject to debate. Period.
All this blather on your statement that there is a constitutional right to go sleeveless ? With a blinking light bulb suggesting you know what you're talking about ? How hysterically ironic ! I doubt you'll find much of a threat in any American "baring" their arms, although the thought of Hillary doing such a thing is enough to strike fear in the hearts of most Americans.
All this blather on your statement that there is a constitutional right to go sleeveless ? With a blinking light bulb suggesting you know what you're talking about ? How hysterically ironic ! I doubt you'll find much of a threat in any American "baring" their arms, although the thought of Hillary doing such a thing is enough to strike fear in the hearts of most Americans.
Period.
I realize that there is very little in your life you don't do intoxicated, but if you post sober, you might make more sense. If you are talking about bear vs bare, keep in mind that auto check wrecks havoc on my posts and it surely won't be the first nor last time.
Shirley, you would have known the difference if sober.
But notice how you never addressed the substance. That is for good reason.
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:
All this blather on your statement that there is a constitutional right to go sleeveless ? With a blinking light bulb suggesting you know what you're talking about ? How hysterically ironic ! I doubt you'll find much of a threat in any American "baring" their arms, although the thought of Hillary doing such a thing is enough to strike fear in the hearts of most Americans.
Period.
I realize that there is very little in your life you don't do intoxicated, but if you post sober, you might make more sense. If you are talking about bear vs bare, keep in mind that auto check wrecks havoc on my posts and it surely won't be the first nor last time.
Shirley, you would have known the difference if sober.
But notice how you never addressed the substance. That is for good reason.
I realize that there is very little in your life you don't do intoxicated, but if you post sober, you might make more sense. If you are talking about bear vs bare, keep in mind that auto check wrecks havoc on my posts and it surely won't be the first nor last time.
Shirley, you would have known the difference if sober.
But notice how you never addressed the substance. That is for good reason.
There was no substance; illiterate failed attempts at sarcasm do not qualify as substance.
You ought to patent that invention which measures sobriety over the internet.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
I realize that there is very little in your life you don't do intoxicated, but if you post sober, you might make more sense. If you are talking about bear vs bare, keep in mind that auto check wrecks havoc on my posts and it surely won't be the first nor last time.
Shirley, you would have known the difference if sober.
But notice how you never addressed the substance. That is for good reason.
There was no substance; illiterate failed attempts at sarcasm do not qualify as substance.
You ought to patent that invention which measures sobriety over the internet.
There was no substance; illiterate failed attempts at sarcasm do not qualify as substance.
You ought to patent that invention which measures sobriety over the internet.
It's been my experience that people that cannot debate substance look for other means of diversion. This situation is a prime example. Let me know if you want to get back to debating substance, or if you're going to show your obsession with Hillary's arms.
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:
There was no substance; illiterate failed attempts at sarcasm do not qualify as substance.
You ought to patent that invention which measures sobriety over the internet.
It's been my experience that people that cannot debate substance look for other means of diversion. This situation is a prime example. Let me know if you want to get back to debating substance, or if you're going to show your obsession with Hillary's arms.
It's been my experience that people that cannot debate substance look for other means of diversion. This situation is a prime example. Let me know if you want to get back to debating substance, or if you're going to show your obsession with Hillary's arms.
The topic of this thread is voter identification laws. I made my point on this topic clearly, concisely and accurately in post #37. You're the one who has diverted attention away from the topic by talking about the right to "bare" arms---in two different posts, blaming your computer for your mistakes and making unfounded accusations about intoxication. If the Covers rules applied to Covers Linesmen, you'd be in cuffs for your hypocritical, insulting and disrespectful behavior. So don't talk to me about substance and diversions.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
It's been my experience that people that cannot debate substance look for other means of diversion. This situation is a prime example. Let me know if you want to get back to debating substance, or if you're going to show your obsession with Hillary's arms.
The topic of this thread is voter identification laws. I made my point on this topic clearly, concisely and accurately in post #37. You're the one who has diverted attention away from the topic by talking about the right to "bare" arms---in two different posts, blaming your computer for your mistakes and making unfounded accusations about intoxication. If the Covers rules applied to Covers Linesmen, you'd be in cuffs for your hypocritical, insulting and disrespectful behavior. So don't talk to me about substance and diversions.
The topic of this thread is voter identification laws. I made my point on this topic clearly, concisely and accurately in post #37. You're the one who has diverted attention away from the topic by talking about the right to "bare" arms---in two different posts, blaming your computer for your mistakes and making unfounded accusations about intoxication. If the Covers rules applied to Covers Linesmen, you'd be in cuffs for your hypocritical, insulting and disrespectful behavior. So don't talk to me about substance and diversions.
I understand that substance abuse makes it difficult to have coherent discussions. Let's try this:
The same argument for voter identification laws can be used for gun control, which was my point before you engaged in personal attacks, to which you frequently do but cry when anyone responds.
So show me the distinction between your argument for voter ID laws and a gun control advocates argument that the greater benefit may outweigh the individual right
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:
The topic of this thread is voter identification laws. I made my point on this topic clearly, concisely and accurately in post #37. You're the one who has diverted attention away from the topic by talking about the right to "bare" arms---in two different posts, blaming your computer for your mistakes and making unfounded accusations about intoxication. If the Covers rules applied to Covers Linesmen, you'd be in cuffs for your hypocritical, insulting and disrespectful behavior. So don't talk to me about substance and diversions.
I understand that substance abuse makes it difficult to have coherent discussions. Let's try this:
The same argument for voter identification laws can be used for gun control, which was my point before you engaged in personal attacks, to which you frequently do but cry when anyone responds.
So show me the distinction between your argument for voter ID laws and a gun control advocates argument that the greater benefit may outweigh the individual right
It's been my experience that people that cannot debate substance look for other means of diversion. This situation is a prime example. Let me know if you want to get back to debating substance, or if you're going to show your obsession with Hillary's arms.
Something about a pot and a kettle...
If I had a dollar for every time you dismissed my debate entry for being scripted by Faux News...
...Which is in the top 10 of the liberal playbook you know?
Me thinks you rely on that play every time you get stumped for real debate material.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
It's been my experience that people that cannot debate substance look for other means of diversion. This situation is a prime example. Let me know if you want to get back to debating substance, or if you're going to show your obsession with Hillary's arms.
Something about a pot and a kettle...
If I had a dollar for every time you dismissed my debate entry for being scripted by Faux News...
...Which is in the top 10 of the liberal playbook you know?
Me thinks you rely on that play every time you get stumped for real debate material.
I understand that substance abuse makes it difficult to have coherent discussions. Let's try this:
The same argument for voter identification laws can be used for gun control, which was my point before you engaged in personal attacks, to which you frequently do but cry when anyone responds.
So show me the distinction between your argument for voter ID laws and a gun control advocates argument that the greater benefit may outweigh the individual right
The very idea that you refer to is in fact a bit of a conundrum. Who's individual right comes first? The right of a person to cast a ballot? Or, the rights of the collective to have an 'unmolested' election?
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
I understand that substance abuse makes it difficult to have coherent discussions. Let's try this:
The same argument for voter identification laws can be used for gun control, which was my point before you engaged in personal attacks, to which you frequently do but cry when anyone responds.
So show me the distinction between your argument for voter ID laws and a gun control advocates argument that the greater benefit may outweigh the individual right
The very idea that you refer to is in fact a bit of a conundrum. Who's individual right comes first? The right of a person to cast a ballot? Or, the rights of the collective to have an 'unmolested' election?
The very idea that you refer to is in fact a bit of a conundrum. Who's individual right comes first? The right of a person to cast a ballot? Or, the rights of the collective to have an 'unmolested' election?
We are getting somewhere. Let's roll with this.
There is no collective right in society, only individual rights. The collective rights are accounted for by laws being enacted that infringe on individual rights, which must face strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored.
So assuming the above is true, cannot a gun control advocate use the same response to argue for gun control that a voter ID proponent can use?
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
The very idea that you refer to is in fact a bit of a conundrum. Who's individual right comes first? The right of a person to cast a ballot? Or, the rights of the collective to have an 'unmolested' election?
We are getting somewhere. Let's roll with this.
There is no collective right in society, only individual rights. The collective rights are accounted for by laws being enacted that infringe on individual rights, which must face strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored.
So assuming the above is true, cannot a gun control advocate use the same response to argue for gun control that a voter ID proponent can use?
Hot Forum Topics
