July 8, 201214 yr How do those 758K people purchase a gun if they want one? No one seems to have an issue with requiring an id for that. :lol: What makes you think any of those 758K own a gun and if they did what makes you think they'd do so legally? :lol: Bad analogy.
July 8, 201214 yr :lol: What makes you think any of those 758K own a gun and if they did what makes you think they'd do so legally? :lol: Bad analogy. You missed my point. Has nothing to do with the 758K. Voting is a constitutional right. So is owning a gun. Why are we ok with forcing citizens to show id for one but not the other? If TB&G's mother wanted to exercise her constitution right to own a gun she couldn't.
July 8, 201214 yr You missed my point. Has nothing to do with the 758K. Voting is a constitutional right. So is owning a gun. Why are we ok with forcing citizens to show id for one but not the other? If TB&G's mother wanted to exercise her constitution right to own a gun she couldn't. One irresponsible voter hurts no one. One irresponsible gun owner can hurt multiple people. I don't have a problem with making people show their ID to vote. That's no big deal to me. If they can go vote they can to get an ID. I do question the timing of the enforcement of this new rule and the motivation behind this new rule.
July 8, 201214 yr One irresponsible voter hurts no one. One irresponsible gun owner can hurt multiple people. I don't have a problem with making people show their ID to vote. That's no big deal to me. If they can go vote they can to get an ID. I do question the timing of the enforcement of this new rule and the motivation behind this new rule. 758K or more certainly could.
July 8, 201214 yr Author As I expected the debate has drifted from its true course. We can all argue the merits of showing an ID for voting. Irrelevant to this particular thread. The true reasoning and the timing are the two reasons I started this thread.
July 8, 201214 yr As I expected the debate has drifted from its true course. We can all argue the merits of showing an ID for voting. Irrelevant to this particular thread. The true reasoning and the timing are the two reasons I started this thread. Wasn't this sort of thing tried before? I really don't see why having to show an ID to vote is a bad thing. I understand the scenario TB&G presented, but I would think a volunteer program of some sort where they could go to these people's homes to get them a legal ID would solve that problem. There has to be an easy way of doing that.
July 8, 201214 yr Wasn't this sort of thing tried before? I really don't see why having to show an ID to vote is a bad thing. I understand the scenario TB&G presented, but I would think a volunteer program of some sort where they could go to these people's homes to get them a legal ID would solve that problem. There has to be an easy way of doing that. That is true. So why not introduce that program along with the new rules so those voter's rights are protected for this election? Or has some kind of grace period such as beginning Jan. 1, 2013 in a show of good faith that they aren't stripping their right to vote in this election.
July 8, 201214 yr Wasn't this sort of thing tried before? I really don't see why having to show an ID to vote is a bad thing. I understand the scenario TB&G presented, but I would think a volunteer program of some sort where they could go to these people's homes to get them a legal ID would solve that problem. There has to be an easy way of doing that. Then the group that does that would get a metaphorical back eye, just as many other registration groups have done. Edited July 8, 201214 yr by True blue (and gold)
July 8, 201214 yr As I expected the debate has drifted from its true course. We can all argue the merits of showing an ID for voting. Irrelevant to this particular thread. The true reasoning and the timing are the two reasons I started this thread. Voter ID legislation has been pushed every year it seems like. Should proponents suspend their push during election years because it seems fishy? Are their motives pure, probably not but I think you could probably find something fishy about the timing of just about every piece of legislation.
July 8, 201214 yr Then the group that does that would get a metaphorical back eye, just as many ter registration groups have done.Not if they have it as a bi-partisan effort where both Democrats and Republicans are represented and it's all done legal. Fair and simple, it would seem to me.
July 8, 201214 yr Not if they have it as a bi-partisan effort where both Democrats and Republicans are represented and it's all done legal. Fair and simple, it would seem to me. Now I do like that!
July 8, 201214 yr Now I do like that!:thumb: No one could complain then. Some still would, but they'd have no basis.
July 9, 201214 yr "Bare knuckle politics"... Hard ball is hard ball. And those who know how Obama got his start know that the the standard (as Valerie Jarrett said about AHA) "whatever it takes". [video=youtube;-B_G5SczZtY]
July 11, 201214 yr This is making the rounds.... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/omg-holder-demands-journalists-show-photo-id-to-get-into-his-naacp-talk-on-evils-of-photo-id-laws/ "NOTE: All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials. Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials athttp://action.naacp.org/page/s/registration. For security purposes, media check-in and equipment set up must be completed by 9:45 a.m. CDT for a 10:00 a.m. CDT security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed, additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit. Press inquiries regarding logistics should be directed to REDACTED. "
July 11, 201214 yr Here's a video of someone getting the opportunity to vote using Eric Holder's ballot. Ironic. Seemed pretty easy.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.