Quote:I didn't say the courts were wrong and I'm right. I said YOU are wrong and I'm right.

oh fun more math. may I introduce you to the transitive property?

My viewpoint (let's call A) is equal to the viewpoint of the courts (let's call B). Therefore A = B. A always equals B hence the A = B. I know that A = B thing is complicated for you. Your viewpoint (let's call C) is the opposite of mine which therefore means it =/= A and therefore it can't equal (= just so you know what that means) B.

see math is fun.

(09-28-2016 03:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I feel like you don't really understand just how bad that comment was. let me break it down for you:

1. the fact that a passport is the most universal type of ID negates your whole point. every other country has that ID as well so its like saying to get 2x to equal 0 I'm going to subtract 2x + 7.

2. it is painfully obvious that you don't know what a national ID is. play around with google. they are universally issued similar to an SS card. many countries use them to be an all in one feature so that they are needed in every day life. they are basically an ATM card, drivers license, etc. all in one. a passport is by no means a personal ID. the overwhelming of americans use them literally a handful of times. we are america an incredibly isolated country that is known being so thin minded about international affairs because we can drive for 20 hours and not leave our own country. do you think canada and mexico being our only neighbors is comparable to a place like poland?

3. Only 46% of americans have a passport. your "national ID" that is mentioned in this topic because everyone else has it and uses on a daily basis isn't even owned by half of americans.

4. a passport costs a $110. so in your mind half of americans needing to pay $110 just to vote is a non issue. I mean according to you the 24th amendment can go **** itself right?

like I said. dumbest response ever. plus the fact you comment on a national ID without knowing what one is speaks volumes of your ineptitude. I'm am way above your league hammy.

John, what is dumb is this tap dance of yours... you move the goal posts like your Ritalin just kicked in.

I never suggested a national ID. YOU did. If you want a national ID, GREAT. My DIL is a German National. I've seen her passport, her visa AND her national ID. I've also lived in Spain and had an ID. Guess what her national ID has that my social security card doesn't?

That's right. Her picture. The new ones also have RFID in them. They also have an expiration date so the picture has to be updated. They don't go to the bank with a utility bill and a piece of paper with a number typed on it and claim that's their proof of identity to open an account.

It's not AT ALL the same. HERE, Democrats want people to be able to use an electric bill as proof that YOU are this person... NOT that 'this person' lives at that address (which it essentially proves) but that YOU are that person. Social security cards don't do that. German IDs do that. Drivers licenses and State IDs do that.

I'd be surprised if you even HAD a passport.

OF COURSE we don't often use passports here... I suspect 50% or more of people never leave this country. Why buy a passport? As I implied, IMO our 'state IDs' (of which a license is one) are more similar to their national IDs... but again, if you'd rather create a federal version of the same, no problem. I didn't support that for the very reason you said. Cost. State IDs are like $5-10. The only reason I suggested an alternative to a state ID was to respond to your concern about states where one party makes it difficult for the other party. The feds could obviously solve that problem with a 'free' national ID.

But let's not pretend that this

is the same thing as

plus


It doesn't even look that much like this


though I suppose the important information could be added to that.


It DOES however look a lot like

or

or


Hint for you... Many Europeans don't have passports anymore either because of the EU accepting the 'state' IDs... like our state IDs. They're copying us, other than they're significantly more secure.



Actually now that I think about it.... I DO have a 'national' ID. It's called a passport card. Like their national ID is valid through the EU, this is valid in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean (land and sea, not air)

It looks like THIS


It still needs an address though to satisfy voter registration requirements. I think they're about $35

Quote:A passport IS a national ID

that was you. and it is an incorrect statement. even if it was correct it would be a technicality and that is all it would be. it is without a doubt incomparable to the type of ID opponents of voter ID envision when they use that talking point. so the fact that you went there goes back to the basic point. you have very little understanding of the topics you talk about.

many of the arguments I have made can be found within the very court rulings that have tossed voter ID. and yet you say you don't disagree with the courts just me

i'm sick of doing your work for you. go read a bunch of lib rags and the pdf court rulings then come back to me and break them down explaining why they are wrong. then I know you for once understand what you are talking about at least.

(09-28-2016 04:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:I didn't say the courts were wrong and I'm right. I said YOU are wrong and I'm right.

oh fun more math. may I introduce you to the transitive property?

Sure... let me introduce you to the null set.

What you CLAIM the courts say, ISN"T what the courts have said.

you /= court

Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v...tion_Board

The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[3] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."

That's Stevens writing that, not Scalia... and 6-3, meaning still 5-3. Only 2 of the justices actually support your claim that they are de facto unconstitutional. The third simply disagreed with the 6 as to how big the burden was.... said differently... 7 of the 9 justices (6 of the living 8) believe that requiring a state issued ID to vote is constitutional

'At trial, the plaintiffs were unable to produce any witnesses who claimed they were not able to meet the law's requirements. The defendants were likewise unable to present any evidence that the corruption purportedly motivating the law existed.'

I essentially claimed the first and you said I was foolish... guess they are too....
You claimed the second and they disagreed.... so we know who the fool is.

Let's review your claims
1) the DMV is too burdensome.
2) it's a big number of people who can't meet the requirements
3) that corruption motivates the law

6 of the 9 justices disagreed specifically with your claims. Instead, they specifically agreed with mine.

Can you write voter ID laws that are Unconstitutional? Of course you can... and of course some states have.

How is that any different than the ACA? When the other side isn't in the discussion, either by choice or not, why should you seek to do ANYTHING but see how far you can push that 6-3? 5-4 is still 'Constitutional'. Depending on the previous court's decision, 4-4 can be Constitutional.

But keep on dancin' John.

jesus it's like you try to ignore what you say. I was talking about all the recent laws getting struck down genius. You would think that would be implied but only you...

(09-27-2016 11:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 09:39 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 12:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 12:39 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Did NPR do a fact check on the Butcher of Benghazi?

Did Benghazi come up in the debate?

No? Then your post is deflecting all the way to irrelevancy station.

Is that in Idaho where you claim to live?

Why are you trolling me thread to thread obsessing over where I currently reside? Its creepy.

No more creepy than claiming to live in Idaho, yet finding time to go to games that are nowhere near Idaho. It's stretches the laws of time and space.

Also, mentioning it in 2 threads does not a troll make.

(09-28-2016 10:35 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 11:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 09:39 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 12:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 12:39 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Did NPR do a fact check on the Butcher of Benghazi?

Did Benghazi come up in the debate?

No? Then your post is deflecting all the way to irrelevancy station.

Is that in Idaho where you claim to live?

Why are you trolling me thread to thread obsessing over where I currently reside? Its creepy.

No more creepy than claiming to live in Idaho, yet finding time to go to games that are nowhere near Idaho. It's stretches the laws of time and space.

Also, mentioning it in 2 threads does not a troll make.

........ bless your heart...........

Harmon,

You're astounded just from me claiming that southerners can't read?? I can a lot worse than that!