Voter ID laws: Everyone has an ID, right? Nope

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

i would suggest anyone with questions on what is, or isn't, voting discrimination to read the voting rights amendment page i linked from wikipedia.

age, sex, race, religion are not things you can use to ban voting. other than that, it's up to the states to set election rules. that's what states are trying to do with id, state by state decisions on felons (not all are disenfranchies for ever and ever, amen), on children of citizens living abroad, etc, etc. it does NOT state that discrimination of any kind is banned. if it isn't listed, it isn't banned. that's how states can make you have id, proof of current address, etc. the states have every right to set the rules, it is constitutionally correct. so dems are trying their hardest to make id purely about race, that's the only way to halt it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i would suggest anyone with questions on what is, or isn't, voting discrimination to read the voting rights amendment page i linked from wikipedia.

age, sex, race, religion are not things you can use to ban voting. other than that, it's up to the states to set election rules. that's what states are trying to do with id, state by state decisions on felons (not all are disenfranchies for ever and ever, amen), on children of citizens living abroad, etc, etc. it does NOT state that discrimination of any kind is banned. if it isn't listed, it isn't banned. that's how states can make you have id, proof of current address, etc. the states have every right to set the rules, it is constitutionally correct. so dems are trying their hardest to make id purely about race, that's the only way to halt it.

I think part of the issue is the active participation. The individual didn't get ID for his or herself.

Would it be discrimination of a person of any racial background does not pack his or her parachute correctly, or does not put a parachute on at all, and then jumps out of a plane?

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

A "principle" only in someone's imagination. Not in reality.

The "conservative" red states are the states with the largest number of people "living off the government teat" via Medicaid, SCHIPS, food stamps.

The oil and gas industry are the largest recipients of government handouts. Sarah Palin, as governor, required private oil companies to send a check to every citizen of Alaska yearly. That's living off the hard work of others to the extreme!

"Conservatives" don't believe in personal responsibility as they try to dictate how other Americans must live: push a minority view of "Christian" religious law on the rest of us, support laws to require forced childbirth, pass laws against women's freedom, against gays, against Muslims, etc.

Current self-described "conservatives" are far more right than any conservatives in American history.

Theocracies and plutocracies are intolerant and dangerous cults. They are dictatorial and authoritarian. They rely on fear to stay in power. They rely on absolute adherence to authoritarian commandments in their followers - not thinking. Thinking for oneself isn't allowed.

Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh are terrific examples of this, especially how Grover and his anti-tax pledges strike fear into the heart of any signer who dares to cross him - they are immediately threatened with cut off of money, and a primary challenge.

Don't mistake that with "conservatism". William F. Buckley is rolling in his grave at the false flag of "conservatism" of the past 10-15 years.

BTW, the "conservatives" in United Kingdom are more "left" than the Democrats in the United States. That's why they celebrated their National Health Care in the Olympics opening ceremony

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

A "principle" only in someone's imagination. Not in reality.

The "conservative" red states are the states with the largest number of people "living off the government teat" via Medicaid, SCHIPS, food stamps.

The oil and gas industry are the largest recipients of government handouts. Sarah Palin, as governor, required private oil companies to send a check to every citizen of Alaska yearly. That's living off the hard work of others to the extreme!

"Conservatives" don't believe in personal responsibility as they try to dictate how other Americans must live: push a minority view of "Christian" religious law on the rest of us, support laws to require forced childbirth, pass laws against women's freedom, against gays, against Muslims, etc.

Current self-described "conservatives" are far more right than any conservatives in American history.

Theocracies and plutocracies are intolerant and dangerous cults. They are dictatorial and authoritarian. They rely on fear to stay in power. They rely on absolute adherence to authoritarian commandments in their followers - not thinking. Thinking for oneself isn't allowed.

Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh are terrific examples of this, especially how Grover and his anti-tax pledges strike fear into the heart of any signer who dares to cross him - they are immediately threatened with cut off of money, and a primary challenge.

Don't mistake that with "conservatism". William F. Buckley is rolling in his grave at the false flag of "conservatism" of the past 10-15 years.

BTW, the "conservatives" in United Kingdom are more "left" than the Democrats in the United States. That's why they celebrated their National Health Care in the Olympics opening ceremony

California and NY by a HUGE margin. Those bastions of conservative ideals that they are.

[Danzig]

looks like an extended rant quoted above. probably had nothing to do with the supreme court ruling that the burden to aquire i.d. is the same across the board, thus not racist. perhaps a deflection on to another subject?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I think part of the issue is the active participation. The individual didn't get ID for his or herself.

Would it be discrimination of a person of any racial background does not pack his or her parachute correctly, or does not put a parachute on at all, and then jumps out of a plane?

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

it's really got nothing to do with discrimination at all. however, unless dems can make it a case of discrimination, then the voting laws would be upheld, and id's could be required. since no other act requiring i.d. has been found to be discriminatory, i don't understand why it would be in this case.
and it's not gone in front of a jury as far as i know in any state. according to the voting rights act, the doj has to sign off-i think it's an overreach on their part to say it is discriminatory. i'd like to see it go thru the courts, so i can get the legal reason as to why, in voting alone, requirement of id is a form of discrimination...but not for getting a job, getting utilities turned on, and myriad other acts in our daily lives.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's really got nothing to do with discrimination at all. however, unless dems can make it a case of discrimination, then the voting laws would be upheld, and id's could be required. since no other act requiring i.d. has been found to be discriminatory, i don't understand why it would be in this case.

You might read the court opinions that have already come down overturning these laws as discriminatory, rather than ignoring that exists.

i'd like to see it go thru the courts, so i can get the legal reason as to why, in voting alone, requirement of id is a form of discrimination...but not for getting a job, getting utilities turned on, and myriad other acts in our daily lives.

LOL - complete and obvious ignorance of the subject matter, such as the court case results already posted in this thread, doesn't help your cause.

As they say, ignorance is bliss. Nobody is saying the requirement of an ID is discriminatory. The courts are saying narrowing the requirement to only certain types of ID, less than the various types of ID that are acceptable now, is discriminatory.