Liberal logic on IDs and voting

[Moonglow]

If you need a photo ID to buy nail polish remover, you should be required to have photo ID to vote.

CVS Requiring ID To Purchase Nail Polish Remover « CBS Los Angeles

Aaaaaaand...we circle back to where the topic started.

Apparently Voter ID proponents really do think uttering a tired logical fallacy again and again will make it true with repetition.

Tell us why you are so vehemently opposed to ID requirements. If you can get a damn Obama phone, you can get an ID card. It is common since to carry an ID with you in case of an emergency.

Explain how no ID requirement does not encourage fraud. If you don't think that there is fraud, and that having an ID requirement is not a mechanism to discourage it, you are stupid. You are opposed to it because it gives liberals an advantage - that is lucid!

Obama phone? We still call them Bush phones around here.Since the program began under GOP watch.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Did the OP ever explain their logic or were they comfortable not having any?

 

[Redfish]

We need an ID to drive, to get on a plane, to get into a bar, to buy a beer, to buy cigs, to sign up for welfare, to get food stamps, to use your medicade card but you want us to believe that people are to poor to get a FREE ID ( they are free you know for voting) to vote but they can get every where else to use the money they get FREE from the government GOTTCHA... Oh forgot you need an ID to get finger nail polish remover in some areas .. YEP

voting is a right, these other things are not. yay end thread of retard

really? you don't have the right to buy something that you want or need? you don't have a right to govt programs made available to citizens?

what exactly and specifically are you afraid of if voter ID is required?

 

[Redfish]

Did the OP ever explain their logic or were they comfortable not having any?

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

 

[Sallow]

I would still like to meet all these folks with out an I.D. in the year 2013, I can only think of Amish folks that wouldnt need one.

Why are you excluding the Amish?

 

[Sallow]

Did the OP ever explain their logic or were they comfortable not having any?

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

Practically everyone.

It wouldn't be free and subject to challenge.

Which would make voting that much more difficult and cumbersome.

But that's what you folks want.

 

[Caroljo]

Please show illegals and dead people are swinging elections. Thank you.

Please show they're not. Thank you.

IF THEY WEREN'T, YOU LIBTARDS WOULDN'T BE SO DAMN AFRAID OF VOTER ID.

STFU idiot. We know all about your game and pathetic EXCUSES!

And here we thought this topic was going to be about left wing illogic and yet all we see is illogic from the Voter ID proponents. Look at you, asking for proof of a negative.

In other words, you have no evidence for your claim and must scream to cover up your embarrassment.

How fascinating you are screaming for more government intervention in the excercising of your constitutional rights. You are actually yelling for more government bureacracy which will accomplish nothing except to disenfranchise the poor.

Amazing.

Disenfranchise the poor?? How? The ID's are FREE.

Oh...I get it, you mean the poor ILLEGALS that won't be able to get them because they have no birth certificate or other means of proving they are US CITIZENS. Darn it all~

 

[birddog]

We need an ID to drive, to get on a plane, to get into a bar, to buy a beer, to buy cigs, to sign up for welfare, to get food stamps, to use your medicade card but you want us to believe that people are to poor to get a FREE ID ( they are free you know for voting) to vote but they can get every where else to use the money they get FREE from the government GOTTCHA... Oh forgot you need an ID to get finger nail polish remover in some areas .. YEP

voting is a right, these other things are not. yay end thread of retard

It's also a right of Americans to expect only the ones legally allowed to be allowed to vote.

 

[Redfish]

Did the OP ever explain their logic or were they comfortable not having any?

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

Practically everyone.

It wouldn't be free and subject to challenge.

Which would make voting that much more difficult and cumbersome.

But that's what you folks want.

total bullshit , shallow.

but rather than hurl stupid insults, tell us which citizens of the USA in 2013 do not have some form of ID. Who are they and what % of the population do they make up?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Did the OP ever explain their logic or were they comfortable not having any?

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

Ok, that's been repeated. What is the repub logic on this? Since it doesn't stop voter fraud that also doesn't exist what is the point?

 

[Sallow]

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

Practically everyone.

It wouldn't be free and subject to challenge.

Which would make voting that much more difficult and cumbersome.

But that's what you folks want.

total bullshit , shallow.

but rather than hurl stupid insults, tell us which citizens of the USA in 2013 do not have some form of ID. Who are they and what % of the population do they make up?

You hurl a stupid insult then expect what? Nice treatment?

No way.

Fish breath.

 

[Sallow]

Did the OP ever explain their logic or were they comfortable not having any?

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

Ok, that's been repeated. What is the repub logic on this? Since it doesn't stop voter fraud that also doesn't exist what is the point?

Gum up the works.

ID isn't the only thing they want. They want to cut early voting and harass groups that register voters.

 

[Redfish]

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

Ok, that's been repeated. What is the repub logic on this? Since it doesn't stop voter fraud that also doesn't exist what is the point?

Gum up the works.

ID isn't the only thing they want. They want to cut early voting and harass groups that register voters.

LOL, like the black panther thugs at the precinct in Philly? like the dems not counting military absentee ballots in Fla? Like Acorn helping people cast multiple ballots.

But once again--------who in the USA in 2013 does not have some form of ID? Who are these people, where do they live, how do they survive, how do they get food stamps?

 

[Redfish]

Did the OP ever explain their logic or were they comfortable not having any?

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

Ok, that's been repeated. What is the repub logic on this? Since it doesn't stop voter fraud that also doesn't exist what is the point?

So lets see. your name is Joe Blow. you are registered to vote. on election day I walk into your voting place and say I am Joe Blow. Since no ID is required, I vote.

an hour later you show up to vote, the poll worker looks at you and says "you already voted Mr Blow". Easy, now multiply that by several million and an election can be stolen.

No, its never happened as far as we know, but it could.

Now, your turn. Who in the USA in 2013 does not have some form of ID?

 

[g5000]

Did the OP ever explain their logic or were they comfortable not having any?

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

A few examples:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter ID Law - ABC News

Court strikes down proposed Missouri voter ID amendment - KansasCity.com

Judge halts Pennsylvania voter ID law



That last one is a REPUBLICAN judge who reversed his previous ruling. He initially allowed Pennsylvania's Voter ID law to go into effect. So it was appealed to the PA Supreme Court. The PA Supreme court was evenly split (because a Republican judge who would have tilted the balance was out on corruption charges), so it was kicked back down to the original judge.

That judge then decided to see if anyone would actually be disenfranchised. He found some people would be, and so he reversed himself.

He placed an injunction on the Voter ID law until after the 2012 election so people would have time to get the ID required by the law.


There was another ruling by a court, Missouri I think, which upheld the Voter ID of that particular state's Voter ID but the judges said it was a useless law which would accomplish nothing.

Judges decide on the legality of a law, not its effectivceness. If they did, Voter ID would be right out.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I would still like to meet all these folks with out an I.D. in the year 2013, I can only think of Amish folks that wouldnt need one.

Why are you excluding the Amish?

Not, I just thought of them when I was trying to figure out who wouldnt need an I..D.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Redfish cant seem to answer a direct question. Every post is him being anti someone else..

 

[g5000]

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

Ok, that's been repeated. What is the repub logic on this? Since it doesn't stop voter fraud that also doesn't exist what is the point?

So lets see. your name is Joe Blow. you are registered to vote. on election day I walk into your voting place and say I am Joe Blow. Since no ID is required, I vote.

an hour later you show up to vote, the poll worker looks at you and says "you already voted Mr Blow". Easy, now multiply that by several million and an election can be stolen.

No, its never happened as far as we know, but it could.

No, it couldn't. It is precisely because it would be caught that it cannot be done, and that makes Voter ID unneccessary.

 

[ClosedCaption]

the logic-fail is on the side of the libs who can never tell us who is disenfranchised by voter ID

Ok, that's been repeated. What is the repub logic on this? Since it doesn't stop voter fraud that also doesn't exist what is the point?

So lets see. your name is Joe Blow. you are registered to vote. on election day I walk into your voting place and say I am Joe Blow. Since no ID is required, I vote.

an hour later you show up to vote, the poll worker looks at you and says "you already voted Mr Blow". Easy, now multiply that by several million and an election can be stolen.

No, its never happened as far as we know, but it could.

Now, your turn. Who in the USA in 2013 does not have some form of ID?

So again, why are you requiring ID for something that isn't happening?

 

[g5000]

Ok, that's been repeated. What is the repub logic on this? Since it doesn't stop voter fraud that also doesn't exist what is the point?

So lets see. your name is Joe Blow. you are registered to vote. on election day I walk into your voting place and say I am Joe Blow. Since no ID is required, I vote.

an hour later you show up to vote, the poll worker looks at you and says "you already voted Mr Blow". Easy, now multiply that by several million and an election can be stolen.

No, its never happened as far as we know, but it could.

Now, your turn. Who in the USA in 2013 does not have some form of ID?

So again, why are you requiring ID for something that isn't happening?

It not only isn't happening, it cannot happen. With the number of fraudulent votes needed to swing an election (Redfish imagines MILLIONS), it would be caught immediately, without Voter ID.

It is a mastubatory fantasy of Voter ID proponents. They imagine such a thing happening, and so want Voter ID to stop this imaginary scenario.

It does not get more illogical than that!