(05-23-2020 07:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 03:06 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Thought experiment for the day - should it be easier to buy a gun or to vote?

It should be--and is, by a long shot--easier to vote.

But neither should be, "just walk up and do it," things. Both rights are subject to accompanying responsibilities--as are all rights. And both rights need protections to ensure that they are exercised validly.

Well said

(05-23-2020 08:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As to your jumping full bore into the explicit ad hom lake -- I find it interesting you preach to others for that until the 'sun' goes down, then jump right into it at a hand drop.

And as for your explicit ad homs --- go jump in a lake. Son.

I am not really following you. Was I supposed to call you father or dad or something?

(05-26-2020 02:11 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 08:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As to your jumping full bore into the explicit ad hom lake -- I find it interesting you preach to others for that until the 'sun' goes down, then jump right into it at a hand drop.

And as for your explicit ad homs --- go jump in a lake. Son.

I am not really following you. Was I supposed to call you father or dad or something?

Notwithstanding (perhaps more aptly in light of) your retort, I suggest my last two sentences should be all that is necessary in view of your supposed confusion.

I am sorry that real world facts in issues ran smack into your 'question of the day.' I am sorry that *you* chose, in light of those facts, to head down the very explicit form of the ad hom. Not my problem at the present.

Bluntly, since I dont think you and I share a familial relationship, perhaps neither 'dad', nor 'son' is really in line. Just a thought there.
And, aside from the preceding sentence, I will keep from the glib twerpy-style response that you have chosen to follow with above.

(05-26-2020 07:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-26-2020 02:11 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 08:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As to your jumping full bore into the explicit ad hom lake -- I find it interesting you preach to others for that until the 'sun' goes down, then jump right into it at a hand drop.

And as for your explicit ad homs --- go jump in a lake. Son.

I am not really following you. Was I supposed to call you father or dad or something?

Notwithstanding (perhaps more aptly in light of) your retort, I suggest my last two sentences should be all that is necessary in view of your supposed confusion.

I am sorry that real world facts in issues ran smack into your 'question of the day.' I am sorry that *you* chose, in light of those facts, to head down the very explicit form of the ad hom. Not my problem at the present.

Bluntly, since I dont think you and I share a familial relationship, perhaps neither 'dad', nor 'son' is really in line. Just a thought there.
And, aside from the preceding sentence, I will keep from the glib twerpy-style response that you have chosen to follow with above.

Call him "dude".

Usually, with me, it is not the word used, but the way it is used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v...tion_Board

the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.
the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of Marion County, affirming the court below by a 6-3 vote

Justice Stevens upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence. Justice Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud.

I'm paraphrasing Breyer, but he basically said that while voter ID was acceptable, the specifics of Indiana's was not for some reason.

so it was really 7-2 in favor of SOME form of 'voter id'.... and ALL of them supported the idea that a 'reasonable burden' on voting was allowable.
Souter and Ginsberg basically said was that the state had the burden of proving fraud... which of course is almost impossible without someone simply admitting it.... because you have no way to verify someone's identity.

As I said... Having a valid ID allows you better access to our financial, healthcare and employment systems. Failing to have an ID hampers you, sometimes significantly in these areas (and others). We all know that requiring registration is legal... and we put lots of money and effort into that. Replace registration with ID and you've spent NO more money AND you've made people's lives easier.

Someone please tell me why we don't go to great effort to get people IDs as a general course, outside of elections.... and if they have a valid ID, why we'd need 'registration drives'.

(05-26-2020 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v...tion_Board

the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.
the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of Marion County, affirming the court below by a 6-3 vote

Justice Stevens upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence. Justice Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud.

I'm paraphrasing Breyer, but he basically said that while voter ID was acceptable, the specifics of Indiana's was not for some reason.

so it was really 7-2 in favor of SOME form of 'voter id'.... and ALL of them supported the idea that a 'reasonable burden' on voting was allowable.
Souter and Ginsberg basically said was that the state had the burden of proving fraud... which of course is almost impossible without someone simply admitting it.... because you have no way to verify someone's identity.

As I said... Having a valid ID allows you better access to our financial, healthcare and employment systems. Failing to have an ID hampers you, sometimes significantly in these areas (and others). We all know that requiring registration is legal... and we put lots of money and effort into that. Replace registration with ID and you've spent NO more money AND you've made people's lives easier.

Someone please tell me why we don't go to great effort to get people IDs as a general course, outside of elections.... and if they have a valid ID, why we'd need 'registration drives'.

Not sure. We don't really see a push on expanding IDs on either side of the aisle.

One of my constant refrains with respect to voter ID laws is that, so long as they're coupled with pushes to exactly what I bolded, there isn't a problem.

(05-26-2020 11:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not sure. We don't really see a push on expanding IDs on either side of the aisle.

With Republicans pushing so hard for voter ID, and using this quite frequently as the reply when the left complains, I don't think your comment is remotely fair. Democrats (and Republicans) could similarly point to I-9 and other similar pushes.

Let's be honest... all of these 'benefits' come from Federal restrictions on those activities 'without' them.... money laundering, tax evasion, illegal immigration etc.

If you think about the generic people who are negatively impacted by this...

On the right, I think of 'off the grid' guys. I don't think it's up to Republicans to find some way to eliminate the problems that are created when someone intentionally chooses to try and live apart from government... so while these people are citizens and are disenfranchised, they have chosen it... and while certainly they may occasionally regret those decisions, that's the price of freedom of choice.

On the left, I am reluctant to speak them, but since I brought it up, I sort of have to... They're the one saying people are being disenfranchised... and Indiana clearly went to some lengths to allow people to vote anyway... so if it's not getting done, it seems to be up to them to fix it... or like the right, let 'their' people face the consequences of their decisions. I don't really know who the generic person from the left's concern list is.

My father was born in a tiny town in Louisiana that has been underwater dozens of times since his birth... losing the paper records each time.... at one point, he was given a Texas birth certificate showing his Louisiana birth... and he served in the military for 25 years, worked in financial services for another 20... all with no problem... so he never addressed it... and now he's having trouble getting the 'new' Texas ID because of the issue, which means he will have trouble flying later this year.... and potentially voter issues later.... so the whole 'the right doesn't care because it doesn't impact them' argument that some put forth doesn't fly with me, or him...

Every state I've seen voter ID laws on (which is only a few, but more than one) has room for exceptions or issues. I DO think that some states should address these issues and groups like the AARP or similar could help...

but I don't see that it's politicians jobs to address every single possibility, especially not before you've addressed the laws... just the big ones.

Most laws take a good while to become effective for that reason. You have to pass it to see what's in it to see who falls out.

I wonder at what point Trump will go far enough with his tweets/statements that more GOP members will call him out.

His latest act, publicly accusing Joe Scarborough of murdering a former aid (who died of a heart condition in the Florida office while Scarborough was in DC), has resulted in the widow publicly releasing a letter to Twitter where he basically begged the CEO to remove the tweet.

A perfect example of Trump’s lack of a filter being problematic, while some on this board and in the country still rationalize it away by either saying it means he speaks what he thinks or it’s better than a politician. Well, POTUS is currently peddling a conspiracy theory that is twisting the knife into a family because of his personal dislike of a media figure. Gross.

Twitter independently edited one of Trump's tweets yesterday on fraudulent voting.

I don't know if any of you have seen the Pixar movie Inside Out, but you have to wonder if Joy, Sadness and Fear don't exist in Trump's brain - it's all run by Anger and Disgust. And the Twitter honchos are like the command center in this clip.

(05-27-2020 06:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I wonder at what point Trump will go far enough with his tweets/statements that more GOP members will call him out.

His latest act, publicly accusing Joe Scarborough of murdering a former aid (who died of a heart condition in the Florida office while Scarborough was in DC), has resulted in the widow publicly releasing a letter to Twitter where he basically begged the CEO to remove the tweet.

A perfect example of Trump’s lack of a filter being problematic, while some on this board and in the country still rationalize it away by either saying it means he speaks what he thinks or it’s better than a politician. Well, POTUS is currently peddling a conspiracy theory that is twisting the knife into a family because of his personal dislike of a media figure. Gross.

yes, outlandish peddling of a conspiracy theory - not unlike the conspiracy theory you lefties peddled for three years and still cling to bitterly, just because of your dislike of a public figure. DDS.

But has he accused
Scarbourough? The quotes I have seen just say it is worth looking into. maybe we could get Mueller to look into it. He has done this kind of thing before.

(05-26-2020 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v...tion_Board

the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.
the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of Marion County, affirming the court below by a 6-3 vote

Justice Stevens upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence. Justice Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud.

I'm paraphrasing Breyer, but he basically said that while voter ID was acceptable, the specifics of Indiana's was not for some reason.

so it was really 7-2 in favor of SOME form of 'voter id'.... and ALL of them supported the idea that a 'reasonable burden' on voting was allowable.
Souter and Ginsberg basically said was that the state had the burden of proving fraud... which of course is almost impossible without someone simply admitting it.... because you have no way to verify someone's identity.

As I said... Having a valid ID allows you better access to our financial, healthcare and employment systems. Failing to have an ID hampers you, sometimes significantly in these areas (and others). We all know that requiring registration is legal... and we put lots of money and effort into that. Replace registration with ID and you've spent NO more money AND you've made people's lives easier.

Someone please tell me why we don't go to great effort to get people IDs as a general course, outside of elections.... and if they have a valid ID, why we'd need 'registration drives'.

Helping people get IDs is a core service of many homeless agencies, church ministries, soup kitchens and so on.

We are getting so polarized, both ways, that I wonder if there is any hope of finding common ground on anything. George Friedman (formerly of STRATFOR, where he used to be Peter Zeihan's boss) has a new book, The Calm Before the Storm, in which he describes what he calls a battle in the USA between experts and common sense. He expects that to come to a head within the next decade. It could be faster than that.

We are about to have an election where, regardless of how it turns out, roughly 50% of Americans are going to want to secede or revolt or do something similar in the immediate aftermath. I truly don't think we can come back together. I think the differences are just fundamentally too great. The great finance centers on the coast would not exist without the production of the heartland, but I don't see the two willing to agree on much of anything or pull together on anything.

I've said before, I still think the key could be Alberta. They've had just about enough of Ottawa, and have actually elected a majority secessionist provincial parliament. And under Canadian law, they can secede. If they go, then Ottawa needs a new cash cow to be able to keep subsidizing Quebec. Quebec becomes a third-world country if they secede, so they pretty much have to stay put as long as Ottawa keeps paying them to stay. I could see a union of kindred souls with Ontario and the Maritimes (who also need subsidies) dragging Quebec along with them and joining New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and at least some of the states bordering the Great Lakes. I could see that driving the heartland to want to leave, probably joined by Alberta and the Canadian prairie provinces. CA, OR, WA, HI, and BC could go on their own or join the northeast coalition. At the end of the day, you could have a finance-based country (like, say, UK) on the two coasts with a resource-based country (like, say, Australia) in the heartland. I really think everybody would be happier with that. The resource-based heartland would have to come up with some fianancial centers, since New York, LAX, San Fran, and Toronto would all be in the other country, but there would be ample candidates--Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Denver, maybe St. Louis.

That'd be bad news. Conference realignment never turns out well for Rice.

Man, that gun control is really working

Glad I live in rural Texas, where most people have guns but rarely use them on each other.

(05-28-2020 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Man, that gun control is really working

Glad I live in rural Texas, where most people have guns but rarely use them on each other.

You are surely aware of the issues in Chicago with tight Illinois gun laws and loose gun laws in close-by neighboring states. This has been discussed ad nauseum any time gun violence in Chicago is brought up so I'm going to assume that you're just trolling here.

(05-28-2020 09:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Man, that gun control is really working

Glad I live in rural Texas, where most people have guns but rarely use them on each other.

You are surely aware of the issues in Chicago with tight Illinois gun laws and loose gun laws in close-by neighboring states. This has been discussed ad nauseum any time gun violence in Chicago is brought up so I'm going to assume that you're just trolling here.

I would surmise there are just as many guns in Houston as in Chicago -- probably more. So your 'pawning the gun violence' off on the ignorant neighbors who allow gun sales really doesnt even come close to an explanation.

According to the 2017 FBI statistics, the murder incidence of Houston was 239 in a population of 2.3 million --- a rate of 1.1 for each 10,000.

Chicago had 658 murders in a population of 2.7 million --- a rate of 2.4 for each 10,000.

It is as easy to legally obtain a handgun *in* the city limits of Houston as compared to one purchasing as a strawman in Indiana (which I assume is your boogeyman, and 170 miles from Chicago as well).

Yep, neighbors having looser gun control than Chicago's near ban *really* doesnt explain that massive disparity. Please feel free to continue with the 'blame the neighbors' canard there.

(05-28-2020 09:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Man, that gun control is really working
Glad I live in rural Texas, where most people have guns but rarely use them on each other.

You are surely aware of the issues in Chicago with tight Illinois gun laws and loose gun laws in close-by neighboring states. This has been discussed ad nauseum any time gun violence in Chicago is brought up so I'm going to assume that you're just trolling here.

So, hypothetically the USA enacts strict gun control laws but Mexico doesn't (or is at least lax in enforcing them). How does your analogy apply?

(05-28-2020 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Man, that gun control is really working

Glad I live in rural Texas, where most people have guns but rarely use them on each other.

You are surely aware of the issues in Chicago with tight Illinois gun laws and loose gun laws in close-by neighboring states. This has been discussed ad nauseum any time gun violence in Chicago is brought up so I'm going to assume that you're just trolling here.

I would surmise there are just as many guns in Houston as in Chicago -- probably more. So your 'pawning the gun violence' off on the ignorant neighbors who allow gun sales really doesnt even come close to an explanation.

According to the 2017 FBI statistics, the murder incidence of Houston was 239 in a population of 2.3 million --- a rate of 1.1 for each 10,000.

Chicago had 658 murders in a population of 2.7 million --- a rate of 2.4 for each 10,000.

It is as easy to legally obtain a handgun *in* the city limits of Houston as compared to one purchasing as a strawman in Indiana (which I assume is your boogeyman, and 170 miles from Chicago as well).

Yep, neighbors having looser gun control than Chicago's near ban *really* doesnt explain that massive disparity. Please feel free to continue with the 'blame the neighbors' canard there.

The persecution complex is so damn strong.


Also, what map are you looking at that has Chicago 170 miles from Indiana??? The Indiana border is so close to Chicago that Indiana advertises their lower cost of living on Chicago city buses. Downtown Chicago is less than 20 miles from Whiting, which is right on the Indiana side of the border. The nearest Cabella's is like 30 miles from Chicago.

(05-28-2020 10:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Man, that gun control is really working
Glad I live in rural Texas, where most people have guns but rarely use them on each other.

You are surely aware of the issues in Chicago with tight Illinois gun laws and loose gun laws in close-by neighboring states. This has been discussed ad nauseum any time gun violence in Chicago is brought up so I'm going to assume that you're just trolling here.

So, hypothetically the USA enacts strict gun control laws but Mexico doesn't (or is at least lax in enforcing them). How does your analogy apply?

You'd have a problem with people trying to smuggle guns in across the border, similar to drugs. The size of the problem would be the question, and if demand would be similar to what it is with drugs.