The Big Cat Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 How much? An all-inclusive luxury box at the 2014 home opener.
Rob's House Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 I don't know what kind of 'gotcha-moment' you're trying to back me into here, but if you're going to draw a distinction between "rationale" and "how I feel," then your line of questioning is inherently a setup... I told you: I believe voting is a right. Therefore, nobody should be precluded from the process, unless--at the time of an election--you're serving a sentence, thus you've been removed from society and don't get to participate. As I mentioned above, once you're out, you're out. As a convicted felon out of jail, you pay your taxes, etc., so you should be re-enveloped into the voting process. What answer were you looking for? I'm trying to get you to lay down a definable principle. So far you've drawn some really blurry lines that show that you're not concerned with accuracy of voter representation as evidence by the fact that you'd rather have 100,000 legit votes invalidated by fraud than to have 10,000 choose not to vote because it was made slightly more inconvenient. So what's the ultimate end. Telling me you think it's a right means very little. As has been explained, you already have to register and show up at a poll which already eliminates some voters but I don't hear you rallying against those measures. Rather, your opposition seems wholly arbitrary and after many days and several pages of back and forth posting I don't think anyone here could articulate your opposition any more specifically than to say you don't like this measure. And that's fine if that's your only reason, it's just not interesting, nor is it worth defending beyond telling us you're entitled to feel what you feel.
The Big Cat Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 I'm trying to get you to lay down a definable principle. So far you've drawn some really blurry lines that show that you're not concerned with accuracy of voter representation as evidence by the fact that you'd rather have 100,000 legit votes invalidated by fraud than to have 10,000 choose not to vote because it was made slightly more inconvenient. So what's the ultimate end. Telling me you think it's a right means very little. As has been explained, you already have to register and show up at a poll which already eliminates some voters but I don't hear you rallying against those measures. Rather, your opposition seems wholly arbitrary and after many days and several pages of back and forth posting I don't think anyone here could articulate your opposition any more specifically than to say you don't like this measure. And that's fine if that's your only reason, it's just not interesting, nor is it worth defending beyond telling us you're entitled to feel what you feel. I don't know what you mean but "100,000 legit votes invalidated by fraud," and how did we get back to "slightly more inconvenient?" That was never my argument, and I've provided an excess of reports that show PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE because of the laws--it has nothing to do with dragging one's ass anywhere. This thread would be a lot shorter if people stopped arguing with points they've made on my behalf. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/147528-voter-id-requirement-may-affect-black-voter-turnout-dems-fear/page__view__findpost__p__2516610
Rob's House Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 I don't know what you mean but "100,000 legit votes invalidated by fraud," and how did we get back to "slightly more inconvenient?" That was never my argument, and I've provided an excess of reports that show PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE because of the laws--it has nothing to do with dragging one's ass anywhere. This thread would be a lot shorter if people stopped arguing with points they've made on my behalf. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/147528-voter-id-requirement-may-affect-black-voter-turnout-dems-fear/page__view__findpost__p__2516610 No, you've shown that a relative handful of people say it is too inconvenient for them to bother with. I agree that is unfortunate and to be minimized, but is not in itself the end of the conversation. And I asked you the question about whether you'd support the law if it caused 10k not to vote but eliminated 100k fraudulent votes and you said no. If that's not your stance I may find it easier to find consistency in your position.
Doc Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 An all-inclusive luxury box at the 2014 home opener. More than I care to wager. In any case, I will just deny there is any voter fraud, like you have.
DC Tom Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 See above. I believe voting's a right. But not a responsibility.
IDBillzFan Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 But not a responsibility. Mayday! Mayday! Thought process going down! No control. Mayday! Mayday!
The Big Cat Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 No, you've shown that a relative handful of people say it is too inconvenient for them to bother with. I agree that is unfortunate and to be minimized, but is not in itself the end of the conversation. And I asked you the question about whether you'd support the law if it caused 10k not to vote but eliminated 100k fraudulent votes and you said no. If that's not your stance I may find it easier to find consistency in your position. You need to go back and read the report I posted yesterday that details circumstances beyond would be voters control. It's not a matter of convenience. Then, go back and re-read the link I posted from this discussion wherei say the exact opposite of what you just wrote. More than I care to wager. In any case, I will just deny there is any voter fraud, like you have. Actually I haven't. But not a responsibility. Responsibility, yes in that one holds himself accountable. Obligation, no in that no external force REQUIRES one to vote. Can it not be both right AND responsibility?
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Can it not be both right AND responsibility? :wallbash: Does your memory go back more than the last four or five posts? You !@#$ing Wednesday.
The Big Cat Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 :wallbash: Does your memory go back more than the last four or five posts? You !@#$ing Wednesday. It does. Why do you ask?
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 It does. Why do you ask? Because you're asking questions that you either want answered that I already answered pages ago, or (far more likely) that are rhetorical and, hence, useless as I answered them pages ago. Either way, I can only conclude you have some sort of memory impairment leading you to agree with everything I say even though you insist I'm wrong and you're right.
The Big Cat Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Because you're asking questions that you either want answered that I already answered pages ago, or (far more likely) that are rhetorical and, hence, useless as I answered them pages ago. Either way, I can only conclude you have some sort of memory impairment leading you to agree with everything I say even though you insist I'm wrong and you're right. Dios mio, I don't even know what we're talking about anymore
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Dios mio, I don't even know what we're talking about anymore The rest of us hit that point about twelve pages ago with you...
IDBillzFan Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 The rest of us hit that point about twelve pages ago with you... Amen.
The Big Cat Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 The rest of us hit that point about twelve pages ago with you... Then I'll summarize: Requiring an ID isn't unreasonable. -HOWEVER- Since that's never been the case before Since there are insurmountable barriers to achieving the newly-upped eligibility requirements Since it will prohibit already eligible voters from voting Since it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist on a large enough scale to start lopping off voters Since (in their own words) it's a blatant ploy for the GOP to win an election by suppressing votes And since this now adds a monetary cost to voting (a voting tax) It's a ****ty solution, and one that should NOT be implemented.
3rdnlng Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Then I'll summarize: Requiring an ID isn't unreasonable. -HOWEVER- Since that's never been the case before Since there are insurmountable barriers to achieving the newly-upped eligibility requirements Since it will prohibit already eligible voters from voting Since it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist on a large enough scale to start lopping off voters Since (in their own words) it's a blatant ploy for the GOP to win an election by suppressing votes And since this now adds a monetary cost to voting (a voting tax) It's a ****ty solution, and one that should NOT be implemented. You are wrong in every point that you have repeated over and over and over. Restating your points does not make them true. You are a waste of time.
Doc Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Then I'll summarize: Requiring an ID isn't unreasonable. I agree.
The Big Cat Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 You are wrong in every point that you have repeated over and over and over. Restating your points does not make them true. You are a waste of time. I'm done proving how not-wrong each of those points are.
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Then I'll summarize: Requiring an ID isn't unreasonable. -HOWEVER- Since that's never been the case before Since there are insurmountable barriers to achieving the newly-upped eligibility requirements Since it will prohibit already eligible voters from voting Since it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist on a large enough scale to start lopping off voters Since (in their own words) it's a blatant ploy for the GOP to win an election by suppressing votes And since this now adds a monetary cost to voting (a voting tax) It's a ****ty solution, and one that should NOT be implemented. It's not unreasonable, except for a handful of reasons that it's unreasonable. Thanks for clearing THAT up.
Jauronimo Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) It's not unreasonable, except for a handful of reasons that it's unreasonable. Thanks for clearing THAT up. He's been very clear on that point the whole time. Sensible and reasonable, but sleazy, racist, and unconstitutional. Edited August 2, 2012 by Jauronimo
Recommended Posts