|
|
On October 29 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, xdaunt, you are not entirely wrong. but it is a little one dimensional
Sure, and I am perfectly open to this possibility. However, right now I see a black population with really obvious social and cultural problems, which are clearly not whitey's fault, that are holding back the black population, and no one has the balls to suggest the black population may be fucking itself because everyone who does gets called a racist or any number of other derogatory terms. The blacks even turned on Bill Cosby when he dared to suggest that the black's problems may be self-inflicted. All that I am saying is let's fix have blacks fix their obvious problems first before we do any more aggressive social engineering to help them out in the event that there are real structural problems that need to be addressed.
|
On October 29 2012 06:00 oneofthem wrote:
he's like an obama wannabe.
you take that back right now
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On October 29 2012 05:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, xdaunt, you are not entirely wrong. but it is a little one dimensional Only a little? Of all the times to mince words, we need a Trotsky here, not a Stalin :p
He does have some degree of a point though, as unpopular as such a sentiment is.
Incidentally, how do blacks compare socioeconomically with hispanics? I say this as I see a lot of stories fired my way involving anti-hispanic rhetoric, or laws being proposed that seem to solely exist to target that community. Both communities have been/are subject to discrimination, but is their current place societally equivalent or are there differences?
|
On October 29 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, xdaunt, you are not entirely wrong. but it is a little one dimensional Sure, and I am perfectly open to this possibility. However, right now I see a black population with really obvious social and cultural problems, which are clearly not whitey's fault, that are holding back the black population, and no one has the balls to suggest the black population may be fucking itself because everyone who does gets called a racist or any number of other derogatory terms. The blacks even turned on Bill Cosby when he dared to suggest that the black's problems may be self-inflicted. All that I am saying is let's fix have blacks fix their obvious problems first before we do any more aggressive social engineering to help them out in the event that there are real structural problems that need to be addressed.
what I'm denying is that these are separate problems. They are all wrapped up in one another. You have to fix them all at once.
yes, the left needs to be more willing to engage in normative cultural criticism. don't worry I'm on it.
|
On October 29 2012 05:54 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 29 2012 05:41 sam!zdat wrote:
yes but WHY!! Because they have been coddled to by democrats and liberals who let blacks scapegoat whitey for all of their problems rather than hold up the proverbial mirror so that blacks can fix their root cultural problems. Don't get me wrong, blacks have had a rough history. However, the Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago. Affirmative action has been in place to benefit many generations of blacks. Every succeeding generation of Americans gives less of a shit about race than the previous. At what point do blacks finally have to responsibility for themselves rather than blame their problems on a rigged society. I think that they have reached that point. As I have mentioned before, I have no problem comparing blacks to Asians in the US. I'm not going to rehash everything now, but I firmly believe that the success of Asians in the US is strong evidence that the failure of blacks is not the result of the system being rigged against them. And you wonder why people think Republicans may be racist... o.O The Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago. Just 15 years ago you could still see signs in Missouri that said "blacks not allowed" yet the local authorities turned a blind eye to it all (anecdote from my uncle who lives in Missouri). Considering blacks have been marginalized for a good two centuries, it's going to take a lot more time (and even more effort) to actually stamp out racism and the "cultural" problems the black communities face. Citing Asians is not a good example. We were never as marginalized as blacks. Plus, culturally, we're just more submissive to government, injustice, etc. so we just keep on truckin' even if people shit in our faces. It's a huge problem I have with Asians. Look at China or Vietnam if you want to see what happens when you just sit around and let people step all over you.
I think it's different in different parts of the country. In the north, I would argue there is much less stigma for being of color than in the deep south.
|
On October 29 2012 05:59 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:58 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, xdaunt, you are not entirely wrong. but it is a little one dimensional Only a little? Of all the times to mince words, we need a Trotsky here, not a Stalin :p I'm trying to be conciliatory, farv. Let me pretend to agree with people more than I actually do, that's the strategy. it's dialectical bro
Haha very well, I shall resist the urge to wax Popper. Carry on 
|
It's enlightening hearing xDaunt's views on race, in addition to his views on women he posted a week or two back. I take comfort in knowing that my distaste for the average republican voter is justified.
|
On October 29 2012 05:53 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:
[quote]
The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning.
They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. It's not up to you to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't. If the IDs are not free, then it's equivalent to a poll tax. If there is not sufficient time for millions of people to get IDs in the allotted amount of time, then it should be put on hold until the next election. It's really as simple as that. All this aside, the Republican strategy of purposefully disenfranchising voters is sickening in and of itself, regardless of the justification. I'm not deciding who GETS to vote. I'm drawing the line at how much we should COMPEL someone to vote. Everyone GETS to vote, but we shouldn't COMPEL someone who is incapable of functioning in a society to vote. What's the benefit?
There's major benefits to having more people participate in politics, including voting. Structural disenfranchiment undermines the stabilizing function democracy has on society overall, and increases the risk of violent political opposition to the government. So yes, compelling people to vote, or at the very least not creating artificial barriers, is a good thing.
This is also why certain nations (belgium) still have mandatory voting, even tho enforcement is lacking.
|
I'm confused, xDaunt. You're saying that blacks are basically blaming whitey or blaming the system and being less ambitious. That's fine. But you haven't proposed actual solutions to the inherent cultural problems. And I don't think you can without talking about race and focusing in on those issues.
I'm not really a big fan of Affirmative Action. But problems don't solve themselves, including cultural issues in the black community. Sure, you can end social programs that they are dependent on. And...? Then what would you like to see happen? Because that's not going to totally solve the issue, and it's naive to think it is.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:00 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:54 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:46 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. you attribute not getting a legal id with social inept? it's like i'm on a gaming website. whoa some of these dudes don't have IDs because they don't have the need for one, like, they don't have a job. No, he associated legal ID with ineptitude. And everyone has use for an ID. You need one to get a job almost everywhere. That's why our homeless shelter provided free ID's. You need one to find a job and get out of the shelter. I know it might come as a shocker to some of you, but I would wager (based on personal experience) that something around 90% of the individuals without ID's are mentally unstable with zero support networks or serious substance abusers. This isn't the poor person. This isn't the minority. It's the dead weight. i would agree that these people are probably not very productive, but it is still not a requirement for voting. I can agree with that, but should we be require to go door to door to collect votes? Is it not already requirement that they travel to a polling station to cast their vote? Is it that harmful to add on a trip to the DMV for the 2-3% that don't have an ID? I would argue that it is not. It is microscopic.
It's so microscopic that Republicans wanted to evoke a national controversy over it right before the election to try and give themselves an advantage. Now I know you may say something like, "it's only a controversy because of those damn liberals overreacting," but the Republican leadership is not stupid (though I may try to paint them as so). They knew exactly the kind of response they would face, yet they did it anyway. And really, seeing as how many of these initiatives are being thrown out of the courts as unconstitutional or too disenfranchising, it's hard to argue for them at this point in time.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:54 Souma wrote:On October 29 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 29 2012 05:41 sam!zdat wrote:
yes but WHY!! Because they have been coddled to by democrats and liberals who let blacks scapegoat whitey for all of their problems rather than hold up the proverbial mirror so that blacks can fix their root cultural problems. Don't get me wrong, blacks have had a rough history. However, the Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago. Affirmative action has been in place to benefit many generations of blacks. Every succeeding generation of Americans gives less of a shit about race than the previous. At what point do blacks finally have to responsibility for themselves rather than blame their problems on a rigged society. I think that they have reached that point. As I have mentioned before, I have no problem comparing blacks to Asians in the US. I'm not going to rehash everything now, but I firmly believe that the success of Asians in the US is strong evidence that the failure of blacks is not the result of the system being rigged against them. And you wonder why people think Republicans may be racist... o.O The Civil Rights Act was passed 50 years ago. Just 15 years ago you could still see signs in Missouri that said "blacks not allowed" yet the local authorities turned a blind eye to it all (anecdote from my uncle who lives in Missouri). Considering blacks have been marginalized for a good two centuries, it's going to take a lot more time (and even more effort) to actually stamp out racism and the "cultural" problems the black communities face. Citing Asians is not a good example. We were never as marginalized as blacks. Plus, culturally, we're just more submissive to government, injustice, etc. so we just keep on truckin' even if people shit in our faces. It's a huge problem I have with Asians. Look at China or Vietnam if you want to see what happens when you just sit around and let people step all over you. I think it's different in different parts of the country. In the north, I would argue there is much less stigma for being of color than in the deep south.
Yes, that is indeed true.
|
On October 29 2012 05:50 Boraz wrote:
I'm confused on how anybody would vote for Obama anymore. He has lied, and has made our country worse with the unemployment rate. People try to blame Bush, but Obama should have had some improvement in our country in his 4 years...and he had none. It's time for change. It's time to move forward, without Obama.
Also this whole Benghazi thing. Obama didn't send reinforcements. He let those people get murdered. Nobody is even discussing this. The media isn't reporting on it because the media is partial to Liberals, and this story hurts Obama, so they won't report on it. But Obama caused people to die by not sending help. It's been proven help was within an hour, for an attack that went 7 hours. He could have sent help at any point, and did not. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is a murderer.
So how can you justify voting for Obama? I'm not saying Romney will be a much better President, but Romney is the lesser of 2 evil's. Obama is going to ruin America, and Romney won't ruin it so much.
Quoting myself seem as though everybody posted past it on other topics.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:06 Boraz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:50 Boraz wrote:
I'm confused on how anybody would vote for Obama anymore. He has lied, and has made our country worse with the unemployment rate. People try to blame Bush, but Obama should have had some improvement in our country in his 4 years...and he had none. It's time for change. It's time to move forward, without Obama.
Also this whole Benghazi thing. Obama didn't send reinforcements. He let those people get murdered. Nobody is even discussing this. The media isn't reporting on it because the media is partial to Liberals, and this story hurts Obama, so they won't report on it. But Obama caused people to die by not sending help. It's been proven help was within an hour, for an attack that went 7 hours. He could have sent help at any point, and did not. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is a murderer.
So how can you justify voting for Obama? I'm not saying Romney will be a much better President, but Romney is the lesser of 2 evil's. Obama is going to ruin America, and Romney won't ruin it so much. Quoting myself seem as though everybody posted past it on other topics.
Not sure why you did that, was going to quote you but decided not to give a second airing to such idiocy. The media being liberally biased is also one of the greatest myths out there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i think the drug trade is a far more grave threat to the living condition of americans than anything going on in the middle east. fix that and we can have somewhat of a fresh start for some of these communities.
|
On October 29 2012 05:50 Boraz wrote:
I'm confused on how anybody would vote for Obama anymore. He has lied, and has made our country worse with the unemployment rate.
Actually unemployment is lower now than when it came in. Not bad for dealing with the biggest financial collapse in 50 years.
People try to blame Bush, but Obama should have had some improvement in our country in his 4 years...and he had none.
Actually he stopped us from falling into a depression. And passed health care reform, bringing us closer (not there yet) to a real first-world country like the rest of the world.
It's time for change. It's time to move forward, without Obama.
And what has Romney proposed that will help us improve the country?
Also this whole Benghazi thing. Obama didn't send reinforcements. He let those people get murdered. Nobody is even discussing this. The media isn't reporting on it because the media is partial to Liberals, and this story hurts Obama, so they won't report on it.
Really? The media won't stop talking about it. Fox News is trying to spin this as a Watergate scandal. It's no where close.
But Obama caused people to die by not sending help. It's been proven help was within an hour, for an attack that went 7 hours. He could have sent help at any point, and did not. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is a murderer.
So how can you justify voting for Obama? I'm not saying Romney will be a much better President, but Romney is the lesser of 2 evil's. Obama is going to ruin America, and Romney won't ruin it so much.
Proof? Please show me the evidence for your claim. You sound as paranoid as the "liberals" that you seem to hate when they were spewing that 911 was an inside job.
|
On October 29 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. It's not up to you to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't. If the IDs are not free, then it's equivalent to a poll tax. If there is not sufficient time for millions of people to get IDs in the allotted amount of time, then it should be put on hold until the next election. It's really as simple as that. All this aside, the Republican strategy of purposefully disenfranchising voters is sickening in and of itself, regardless of the justification. I'm not deciding who GETS to vote. I'm drawing the line at how much we should COMPEL someone to vote. Everyone GETS to vote, but we shouldn't COMPEL someone who is incapable of functioning in a society to vote. What's the benefit? There's major benefits to having more people participate in politics, including voting. Structural disenfranchiment undermines the stabilizing function democracy has on society overall, and increases the risk of violent political opposition to the government. So yes, compelling people to vote, or at the very least not creating artificial barriers, is a good thing.
It's a benefit to society to have a mentally retarded (and I mean this not as derogatory) person vote? I don't buy that for a second.
I think it's beneficial to PERMIT them to vote. But I don't think an ID is an unreasonable requirement for someone to obtain so they can vote. It's not like ID's are denied to people because they are of a certain race or demographic. We already place certain burdens on voters, such as applying for an absentee ballot or traveling to the local polling station. An ID requirement is NOT going to be the straw that breaks the camels back, so to speak.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:09 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:On October 29 2012 05:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. It's not up to you to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't. If the IDs are not free, then it's equivalent to a poll tax. If there is not sufficient time for millions of people to get IDs in the allotted amount of time, then it should be put on hold until the next election. It's really as simple as that. All this aside, the Republican strategy of purposefully disenfranchising voters is sickening in and of itself, regardless of the justification. I'm not deciding who GETS to vote. I'm drawing the line at how much we should COMPEL someone to vote. Everyone GETS to vote, but we shouldn't COMPEL someone who is incapable of functioning in a society to vote. What's the benefit? There's major benefits to having more people participate in politics, including voting. Structural disenfranchiment undermines the stabilizing function democracy has on society overall, and increases the risk of violent political opposition to the government. So yes, compelling people to vote, or at the very least not creating artificial barriers, is a good thing. It's a benefit to society to have a mentally retarded (and I mean this not as derogatory) person vote? I don't buy that for a second. I think it's beneficial to PERMIT them to vote. But I don't think an ID is an unreasonable requirement for someone to obtain so they can vote. It's not like ID's are denied to people because they are of a certain race or demographic. We already place certain burdens on voters, such as applying for an absentee ballot or traveling to the local polling station. An ID requirement is NOT going to be the straw that breaks the camels back, so to speak.
To play devil's advocate, is the (lack thereof) of voting ID currently leading to actual voter fraud? If not then what is the reasoning behind bringing this issue up at this time?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:09 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:On October 29 2012 05:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:On October 29 2012 05:44 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:40 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:38 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:35 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2012 05:33 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states. In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them. is the law accompanied by a scheme of providing ids to those who need them? Nope, and it's not legally required to. But an ID card (non-driver) is <$10 if I remember. I paid $4 to replace mine once. the fact that some people don't have ids is indicative of their fringe status in a society. it might take these people more effort than you to approach the system and get inside it. now, further attempts at marginalizing these people is a classic case of disenfranchisement You're right, god forbid we verify a voter's identity in the chance it might hurt the feelings of someone who's socially inept. -_- To be quite frank, anyone not motivated enough to get an ID (or too incompetent to) is not someone that should be voting anyways. It's one thing to have the opportunity to vote, it's another to force uninformed people to vote. It's not up to you to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't. If the IDs are not free, then it's equivalent to a poll tax. If there is not sufficient time for millions of people to get IDs in the allotted amount of time, then it should be put on hold until the next election. It's really as simple as that. All this aside, the Republican strategy of purposefully disenfranchising voters is sickening in and of itself, regardless of the justification. I'm not deciding who GETS to vote. I'm drawing the line at how much we should COMPEL someone to vote. Everyone GETS to vote, but we shouldn't COMPEL someone who is incapable of functioning in a society to vote. What's the benefit? There's major benefits to having more people participate in politics, including voting. Structural disenfranchiment undermines the stabilizing function democracy has on society overall, and increases the risk of violent political opposition to the government. So yes, compelling people to vote, or at the very least not creating artificial barriers, is a good thing. It's a benefit to society to have a mentally retarded (and I mean this not as derogatory) person vote? I don't buy that for a second. I think it's beneficial to PERMIT them to vote. But I don't think an ID is an unreasonable requirement for someone to obtain so they can vote. It's not like ID's are denied to people because they are of a certain race or demographic. We already place certain burdens on voters, such as applying for an absentee ballot or traveling to the local polling station. An ID requirement is NOT going to be the straw that breaks the camels back, so to speak.
policy consideration is evaluated real time, so the real impact of such laws on election mechanics is serious enough to not pass them right now. it's a pretty straightforward test on this one
|
On October 29 2012 06:06 Boraz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:50 Boraz wrote:
I'm confused on how anybody would vote for Obama anymore. He has lied, and has made our country worse with the unemployment rate. People try to blame Bush, but Obama should have had some improvement in our country in his 4 years...and he had none. It's time for change. It's time to move forward, without Obama.
Also this whole Benghazi thing. Obama didn't send reinforcements. He let those people get murdered. Nobody is even discussing this. The media isn't reporting on it because the media is partial to Liberals, and this story hurts Obama, so they won't report on it. But Obama caused people to die by not sending help. It's been proven help was within an hour, for an attack that went 7 hours. He could have sent help at any point, and did not. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is a murderer.
So how can you justify voting for Obama? I'm not saying Romney will be a much better President, but Romney is the lesser of 2 evil's. Obama is going to ruin America, and Romney won't ruin it so much. Quoting myself seem as though everybody posted past it on other topics.
Everyone posted past it because not only has the topic been discussed to death and your many "points" have been heavily indicted, your vitriolic rhetoric reeks of self-important echo chamber satisfaction. You don't really care if anyone reads what you wrote, come on.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On October 29 2012 06:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 06:06 Boraz wrote:On October 29 2012 05:50 Boraz wrote:
I'm confused on how anybody would vote for Obama anymore. He has lied, and has made our country worse with the unemployment rate. People try to blame Bush, but Obama should have had some improvement in our country in his 4 years...and he had none. It's time for change. It's time to move forward, without Obama.
Also this whole Benghazi thing. Obama didn't send reinforcements. He let those people get murdered. Nobody is even discussing this. The media isn't reporting on it because the media is partial to Liberals, and this story hurts Obama, so they won't report on it. But Obama caused people to die by not sending help. It's been proven help was within an hour, for an attack that went 7 hours. He could have sent help at any point, and did not. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is a murderer.
So how can you justify voting for Obama? I'm not saying Romney will be a much better President, but Romney is the lesser of 2 evil's. Obama is going to ruin America, and Romney won't ruin it so much. Quoting myself seem as though everybody posted past it on other topics. Everyone posted past it because not only has the topic been discussed to death and your many "points" have been heavily indicted, your vitriolic rhetoric reeks of self-important echo chamber satisfaction. You don't really care if anyone reads what you wrote, come on.
But he totally does care, he's probably coming up with a retort to the guy a few posts above as we speak! Boraz is all about nuanced debate and discussion!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
