As Predicted, Democrats Using Ferguson Riots To Register Voters

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What does that have to do with requiring photo ID in order to allow Americans their Constitutional right to vote?

Come on. Can you really not see that a government who requires proof of ID to enjoy one right should be able to do so with other rights?

Look at all the rights we have to prove who we are to enjoy. What makes voting special? I'm serious.

Which right does the government require photo ID for?

Your either stupid, or being specious, In either case I"ll not waste my time or energy arguing with someone who won't admit that we have to show ID for MANY reasons in this country most of which are things we have a right to do.

LOL

If that were true -- you'd tell me which right requires photo ID.

You can't, so you feign outrage to pretend like you don't want to, when the reality is -- you can't.

Go try to open a bank account with a government ID. IT is ILLEGAL
Try to get on an airplane without government ID - you can but it is a nightmare
Try to drive without ID
Try to rent a hotel without ID

THe list goes on

Putz ... we're talking about rights. None of those are rights. Voting is a Constitutional right.

You are hereby dismissed as a toady.

LOL

You're not man enough to dismiss me.

You do need a drivers license with a photo to drive. So here is the trick question, be careful how you answer because it has baring to this discussion, ... is the ability to drive a "right" or a "privilege" ?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What does that have to do with requiring photo ID in order to allow Americans their Constitutional right to vote?

Come on. Can you really not see that a government who requires proof of ID to enjoy one right should be able to do so with other rights?

Look at all the rights we have to prove who we are to enjoy. What makes voting special? I'm serious.

Which right does the government require photo ID for?

Your either stupid, or being specious, In either case I"ll not waste my time or energy arguing with someone who won't admit that we have to show ID for MANY reasons in this country most of which are things we have a right to do.

LOL

If that were true -- you'd tell me which right requires photo ID.

You can't, so you feign outrage to pretend like you don't want to, when the reality is -- you can't.

Go try to open a bank account with a government ID. IT is ILLEGAL
Try to get on an airplane without government ID - you can but it is a nightmare
Try to drive without ID
Try to rent a hotel without ID

THe list goes on

Putz ... we're talking about rights. None of those are rights. Voting is a Constitutional right.

You are hereby dismissed as a toady.

LOL

You're not man enough to dismiss me.

You do need a drivers license with a photo to drive. So here is the trick question, be careful how you answer because it has baring to this discussion, ... is the ability to drive a "right" or a "privilege" ?

Driving on public roads is a right as several court cases have upheld

Right to Drive

and with that, this thread is OVER

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What does that have to do with requiring photo ID in order to allow Americans their Constitutional right to vote?

Come on. Can you really not see that a government who requires proof of ID to enjoy one right should be able to do so with other rights?

Look at all the rights we have to prove who we are to enjoy. What makes voting special? I'm serious.

Which right does the government require photo ID for?

Your either stupid, or being specious, In either case I"ll not waste my time or energy arguing with someone who won't admit that we have to show ID for MANY reasons in this country most of which are things we have a right to do.

LOL

If that were true -- you'd tell me which right requires photo ID.

You can't, so you feign outrage to pretend like you don't want to, when the reality is -- you can't.

Go try to open a bank account with a government ID. IT is ILLEGAL
Try to get on an airplane without government ID - you can but it is a nightmare
Try to drive without ID
Try to rent a hotel without ID

THe list goes on

Putz ... we're talking about rights. None of those are rights. Voting is a Constitutional right.

You are hereby dismissed as a toady.

LOL

You're not man enough to dismiss me.

You do need a drivers license with a photo to drive. So here is the trick question, be careful how you answer because it has baring to this discussion, ... is the ability to drive a "right" or a "privilege" ?

Driving on public roads is a right as several court cases have upheld

Right to Drive

and with that, this thread is OVER

So if you need to carry a photo ID to drive, because you say it's a right, then you need one to vote using the same analogy.

 

[Faun]

What does that have to do with requiring photo ID in order to allow Americans their Constitutional right to vote?

Come on. Can you really not see that a government who requires proof of ID to enjoy one right should be able to do so with other rights?

Look at all the rights we have to prove who we are to enjoy. What makes voting special? I'm serious.

Which right does the government require photo ID for?

Your either stupid, or being specious, In either case I"ll not waste my time or energy arguing with someone who won't admit that we have to show ID for MANY reasons in this country most of which are things we have a right to do.

LOL

If that were true -- you'd tell me which right requires photo ID.

You can't, so you feign outrage to pretend like you don't want to, when the reality is -- you can't.

Go try to open a bank account with a government ID. IT is ILLEGAL
Try to get on an airplane without government ID - you can but it is a nightmare
Try to drive without ID
Try to rent a hotel without ID

THe list goes on

Putz ... we're talking about rights. None of those are rights. Voting is a Constitutional right.

You are hereby dismissed as a toady.

LOL

You're not man enough to dismiss me.

You do need a drivers license with a photo to drive. So here is the trick question, be careful how you answer because it has baring to this discussion, ... is the ability to drive a "right" or a "privilege" ?

Driving on public roads is a right as several court cases have upheld

Right to Drive

and with that, this thread is OVER

Nah, you're just confused between "traveling" and "driving." The right to travel freely in the U.S. is indeed a right ... driving a car o public roads remains a privilege.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Voting is the very bedrock of our country. What does it say about the right that they are putting everything they can think of in the way of that very basic right?

As for Dems "using" Ferguson to register voters, why are Repubs doing the same thing? Why don't they want those people to vote?

 

[bodecea]

Has the OP yet established why registering people to vote is a bad thing?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What does that have to do with requiring photo ID in order to allow Americans their Constitutional right to vote?

Come on. Can you really not see that a government who requires proof of ID to enjoy one right should be able to do so with other rights?

Look at all the rights we have to prove who we are to enjoy. What makes voting special? I'm serious.

Which right does the government require photo ID for?

Your either stupid, or being specious, In either case I"ll not waste my time or energy arguing with someone who won't admit that we have to show ID for MANY reasons in this country most of which are things we have a right to do.

LOL

If that were true -- you'd tell me which right requires photo ID.

You can't, so you feign outrage to pretend like you don't want to, when the reality is -- you can't.

Go try to open a bank account with a government ID. IT is ILLEGAL
Try to get on an airplane without government ID - you can but it is a nightmare
Try to drive without ID
Try to rent a hotel without ID

THe list goes on

Putz ... we're talking about rights. None of those are rights. Voting is a Constitutional right.

You are hereby dismissed as a toady.

LOL

You're not man enough to dismiss me.

You do need a drivers license with a photo to drive. So here is the trick question, be careful how you answer because it has baring to this discussion, ... is the ability to drive a "right" or a "privilege" ?

Driving on public roads is a right as several court cases have upheld

Right to Drive

and with that, this thread is OVER

Nah, you're just confused between "traveling" and "driving." The right to travel freely in the U.S. is indeed a right ... driving a car o public roads remains a privilege.

no sir , read the ruling, The Court was VERY clear, driving on public roads is a RIGHT

 

[Faun]

What does that have to do with requiring photo ID in order to allow Americans their Constitutional right to vote?

Come on. Can you really not see that a government who requires proof of ID to enjoy one right should be able to do so with other rights?

Look at all the rights we have to prove who we are to enjoy. What makes voting special? I'm serious.

Which right does the government require photo ID for?

Your either stupid, or being specious, In either case I"ll not waste my time or energy arguing with someone who won't admit that we have to show ID for MANY reasons in this country most of which are things we have a right to do.

LOL

If that were true -- you'd tell me which right requires photo ID.

You can't, so you feign outrage to pretend like you don't want to, when the reality is -- you can't.

Go try to open a bank account with a government ID. IT is ILLEGAL
Try to get on an airplane without government ID - you can but it is a nightmare
Try to drive without ID
Try to rent a hotel without ID

THe list goes on

Putz ... we're talking about rights. None of those are rights. Voting is a Constitutional right.

You are hereby dismissed as a toady.

LOL

You're not man enough to dismiss me.

You do need a drivers license with a photo to drive. So here is the trick question, be careful how you answer because it has baring to this discussion, ... is the ability to drive a "right" or a "privilege" ?

Driving on public roads is a right as several court cases have upheld

Right to Drive

and with that, this thread is OVER

Nah, you're just confused between "traveling" and "driving." The right to travel freely in the U.S. is indeed a right ... driving a car o public roads remains a privilege.

no sir , read the ruling, The Court was VERY clear, driving on public roads is a RIGHT

Clear as mud maybe, since the word, "driving," appears nowhere in any of those cases. Furthermore, the controlling issue in none of those cases was even about driving a vehicle being a right. In fact, whenever a case has come up about driving being a right, the person bringing the case has lost. Those cases affirmed the right to travel; in no case, did they establish a right to "drive" an automobile on a public road.

And lastly, it's unconstitutional to require a license on a right. That should have been your first clue that driving on public roads, which require a driver's license, is not a right. Even had states' erred against that had driving actually been a right, it would have been reversed by now, stemming from anyone of the cases trying to establish such a right. Instead, such cases were dismissed.

 

[Hossfly]

Has the OP yet established why registering people to vote is a bad thing?

Registering people to vote is not a bad thing but breaking the voting laws is a bad thing. That's what conservatives are against, not registration.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What does that have to do with requiring photo ID in order to allow Americans their Constitutional right to vote?

Come on. Can you really not see that a government who requires proof of ID to enjoy one right should be able to do so with other rights?

Look at all the rights we have to prove who we are to enjoy. What makes voting special? I'm serious.

Which right does the government require photo ID for?

Your either stupid, or being specious, In either case I"ll not waste my time or energy arguing with someone who won't admit that we have to show ID for MANY reasons in this country most of which are things we have a right to do.

LOL

If that were true -- you'd tell me which right requires photo ID.

You can't, so you feign outrage to pretend like you don't want to, when the reality is -- you can't.

Go try to open a bank account with a government ID. IT is ILLEGAL
Try to get on an airplane without government ID - you can but it is a nightmare
Try to drive without ID
Try to rent a hotel without ID

THe list goes on

Putz ... we're talking about rights. None of those are rights. Voting is a Constitutional right.

You are hereby dismissed as a toady.

LOL

You're not man enough to dismiss me.

You do need a drivers license with a photo to drive. So here is the trick question, be careful how you answer because it has baring to this discussion, ... is the ability to drive a "right" or a "privilege" ?

Driving on public roads is a right as several court cases have upheld

Right to Drive

and with that, this thread is OVER

Nah, you're just confused between "traveling" and "driving." The right to travel freely in the U.S. is indeed a right ... driving a car o public roads remains a privilege.

no sir , read the ruling, The Court was VERY clear, driving on public roads is a RIGHT

Clear as mud maybe, since the word, "driving," appears nowhere in any of those cases. Furthermore, the controlling issue in none of those cases was even about driving a vehicle being a right. In fact, whenever a case has come up about driving being a right, the person bringing the case has lost. Those cases affirmed the right to travel; in no case, did they establish a right to "drive" an automobile on a public road.

And lastly, it's unconstitutional to require a license on a right. That should have been your first clue that driving on public roads, which require a driver's license, is not a right. Even had states' erred against that had driving actually been a right, it would have been reversed by now, stemming from anyone of the cases trying to establish such a right. Instead, such cases were dismissed.

The ruling CLEARLY reads that locomotion on a public road is a right.

 

[Faun]

What does that have to do with requiring photo ID in order to allow Americans their Constitutional right to vote?

Come on. Can you really not see that a government who requires proof of ID to enjoy one right should be able to do so with other rights?

Look at all the rights we have to prove who we are to enjoy. What makes voting special? I'm serious.

Which right does the government require photo ID for?

Your either stupid, or being specious, In either case I"ll not waste my time or energy arguing with someone who won't admit that we have to show ID for MANY reasons in this country most of which are things we have a right to do.

LOL

If that were true -- you'd tell me which right requires photo ID.

You can't, so you feign outrage to pretend like you don't want to, when the reality is -- you can't.

Go try to open a bank account with a government ID. IT is ILLEGAL
Try to get on an airplane without government ID - you can but it is a nightmare
Try to drive without ID
Try to rent a hotel without ID

THe list goes on

Putz ... we're talking about rights. None of those are rights. Voting is a Constitutional right.

You are hereby dismissed as a toady.

LOL

You're not man enough to dismiss me.

You do need a drivers license with a photo to drive. So here is the trick question, be careful how you answer because it has baring to this discussion, ... is the ability to drive a "right" or a "privilege" ?

Driving on public roads is a right as several court cases have upheld

Right to Drive

and with that, this thread is OVER

Nah, you're just confused between "traveling" and "driving." The right to travel freely in the U.S. is indeed a right ... driving a car o public roads remains a privilege.

no sir , read the ruling, The Court was VERY clear, driving on public roads is a RIGHT

Clear as mud maybe, since the word, "driving," appears nowhere in any of those cases. Furthermore, the controlling issue in none of those cases was even about driving a vehicle being a right. In fact, whenever a case has come up about driving being a right, the person bringing the case has lost. Those cases affirmed the right to travel; in no case, did they establish a right to "drive" an automobile on a public road.

And lastly, it's unconstitutional to require a license on a right. That should have been your first clue that driving on public roads, which require a driver's license, is not a right. Even had states' erred against that had driving actually been a right, it would have been reversed by now, stemming from anyone of the cases trying to establish such a right. Instead, such cases were dismissed.

The ruling CLEARLY reads that locomotion on a public road is a right.

Yes it does. So what? That would only be relevant to your position if "locomotion" meant "driving." It doesn't. As clarified in the case you cite, "the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination"

That's about movement, not driving. That's because moving freely in the U.S. is a right, whereas driving remains a privilege.

Not a single case you cited is even about the right to drive. You don't know anything about any of the cases, which are taken out of context, because all you did was cut & paste some idiocy from a website you hoped would make your point for you since you can't actually make it.

On the flip side, there have been cases where folks sought to establish a legal right to drive. Not one has ever won because no such right exists. Here's one example...

But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel,see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel. Id.Accordingly, the district court's judgment dismissing Dean's case is AFFIRMED.​

 

[hazlnut]

Getting Ferguson Majority to Show Its Clout at Polls
By MONICA DAVEYAUG. 30, 2014


Photo

Shiron Hagens of St. Louis, right, was on West Florissant Avenue in Ferguson, Mo., on Saturday urging residents like Rita Foley to register to vote. Credit Whitney Curtis for The New York Times

Hey, bigot, where are the riots in this picture.

Looks like a community coming a live and getting people involved -- to avoid future riots.

But you'll just keep on race-baiting and spewing your racist filth.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This incident had a racial outlook right from the start. Why did Obama's attorney general find the need to give special attention to this travesty, yet no attention was given to a elderly Caucasian veteran beaten and left for dead by two black teens? Are we not to treat and value both lives the same? Perhaps this only goes to prove how this administration values its veterans who serve?

Dec 2013 - SPOKANE, Wash. -
WWII veteran Delbert Belton survived being wounded in action during the Battle of Okinawa only to be beaten and left for dead by two teens at the Eagles Lodge in Spokane on Wednesday evening.

WWII vet beaten by teens outside Eagles Lodge dies KXLY Spokane