posted
I'm really skeptical upfront. Is everything about this informationally valid — is this an actual, legitimate and accurate description of an actual thing happening in Texas
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's Texas. The one state where I think something like this is far more likely to be true than false.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's Texas. The one state where I think something like this is far more likely to be true than false.
I was thinking that this statement couldn't possibly be true. Surely there's gotta be another state that would pass (or try to pass) crazy legislation. But then I read the article. Seems like a pretty accurate statement.
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could see my home state of Virginia trying to pull something like this but doubt it would ever pass. Now I'm in Florida. I don't know, they are a bit crazy down here but I don't think that crazy.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I looked into this pretty hard. I have no reason yet to suspect that it's not exactly what it seems to be.
There's legitimately no real reason to need ID with your up-to-date name in a way which disqualifies you if you got married and changed your name. The common cover story of "it's to prevent voter fraud!" has already been torn to pieces here and elsewhere.
And, yes, this is Texas, the state that didn't even wait a day after section 4 of the VRA was struck down to enact a law targeting the ability of minorities to vote, since this keeps republicans in power.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judge Posner, who wrote the original court decision upholding Voter ID laws issued an apology last week. NYT had an article on it. He said he never could have imagined this all would happen.
Better late than never I suppose.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Judge Posner, who wrote the original court decision upholding Voter ID laws issued an apology last week. NYT had an article on it. He said he never could have imagined this all would happen.
Better late than never I suppose.
This part honestly deserves its own thread.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Judge Posner, who wrote the original court decision upholding Voter ID laws issued an apology last week. NYT had an article on it. He said he never could have imagined this all would happen.
Better late than never I suppose.
My google-fu is weak this morning; I'm not having any luck finding the article. Could you link?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a dishonest article. Not sure I expected anything different from a Huffington Post article though.
If a woman is changing her LEGAL name, she already has to get a new Social Security card, new drivers license, etc. Right on the Social Security Administrations website:
quote: Step 1: Gather documents proving your:
•Legal name change;
◦Marriage document; ◦Divorce decree; ◦Certificate of Naturalization showing a new name; or ◦Court-ordered name change. •Identity; and •U.S. citizenship (if you have not established your citizenship with us) or immigration status (including Department of Homeland Security permission to work in the United States. Step 2: Complete an Application for a Social Security card.
Step 3: Take or mail your completed application and documents to your local Social Security office.
If she doesn't go through the process to change her legal name, her legal name is the same as it used to be. She can show her existing ID with her old name and be just fine.
Voter registration forms ask for your legal name. If you haven't changed your legal name, you use the old one.
There are other problems with voter ID laws, but calling it a 19th amendment issue? That's grasping at straws.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the article pointed out, many women don't bother to get a new driver's license when changing their legal name. This was the case for my wife who waited until her next renewal date to get a new card.
Getting a new license requires a visit to the DMV and a monetary outlay. A SSN card would not suffice here.
As far as I can see the article is entirely correct on its substance. Do you disagree?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: What a dishonest article. Not sure I expected anything different from a Huffington Post article though.
If a woman is changing her LEGAL name, she already has to get a new Social Security card, new drivers license, etc. Right on the Social Security Administrations website:
quote: Step 1: Gather documents proving your:
•Legal name change;
◦Marriage document; ◦Divorce decree; ◦Certificate of Naturalization showing a new name; or ◦Court-ordered name change. •Identity; and •U.S. citizenship (if you have not established your citizenship with us) or immigration status (including Department of Homeland Security permission to work in the United States. Step 2: Complete an Application for a Social Security card.
Step 3: Take or mail your completed application and documents to your local Social Security office.
If she doesn't go through the process to change her legal name, her legal name is the same as it used to be. She can show her existing ID with her old name and be just fine.
Voter registration forms ask for your legal name. If you haven't changed your legal name, you use the old one.
There are other problems with voter ID laws, but calling it a 19th amendment issue? That's grasping at straws.
It's an effort to win an election not by persuasive changing the popular will, but by attempting to stop or make more difficult one's opponents from voting. It's not a legit technical 19th issue, but it sure as hell violates the spirit. With each passing month I'm less and less willing to entertain 'it's not that bad' discussions on voter ID laws. Republicans who get behind this could scarcely be more unAmerican than if they served in the Politburo.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, if anyone seriously believes that this change is necessary or even productive for ANY reason that the GOP would offer as a means of passing judicial muster, they're complete fools. This is one of many rule changes designed wholeheartedly around keeping various minorities from being able to vote in order to minimize liberal voting competition.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
"After bragging in a TV interview that the state's Voter ID regulations would "kick the Democrats in the butt," and after making reference to "lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything," a North Carolina conservative activist has stepped down from his Republican Party post."
"After bragging in a TV interview that the state's Voter ID regulations would "kick the Democrats in the butt," and after making reference to "lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything," a North Carolina conservative activist has stepped down from his Republican Party post."
Oh, so we are cherry picking quotes by unknown conservatives now to try and prove that the entire GOP establishment is out to disenfranchise minority voters through voter ID laws huh?
Right, and Democrats just want to fund Planned Parenthood to keep the black population under control.
Am I doing it right?
On subject, if identifications are free, there is no Jim Crow argument. Really the only argument left, and something Republicans haven't really been able to argue effectively, is the reason WHY something like this is really necessary. There isn't an epidemic of voter fraud, though it does exist on a small scale.
Also, has anyone heard of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform ? In 2005 they released some recommendations on how to build integrity in federal elections. There were five "pillars" to do this, and Voter ID laws were one of them. Of 21 members, only 3 disagreed with this recommendation. Then again, the leader of the Commission is nothing but a right wing hack by the name of Jimmy Carter.
Not to mention that polls show the vast majority of people agree that voter ID laws should be in place.
Just for reference, here's a list of things you need ID for:
1.Buying alcohol 2.Buying cigarettes 3.Opening a bank account 4.Cashing a check 5.Applying for food stamps 6.Applying for welfare 7.Applying for Medicare & Social Security 8.Applying for employment 9.Applying for unemployment 10.Applying for a mortgage 11.Renting a house or apartment 12.Drive or buy a car 13.Get on an airplane 14.Get married 15.Buy a gun 16.Adopt a pet 17.Apply for a hunting license 18.Apply for a fishing license 19.Buy a cell phone 20.Visit a casino 21.Pick-up a prescription 22.Hold a rally or protest 23.Donate blood 24.Buy an “M” rated movie 25.Purchase nail polish at CVS 26.Purchase certain cold medicines
posted
Well, the GOP establishment is trying to disenfranchise minority voters through voter ID laws, after all, but I wouldn't use that video as Exhibit A. I would just use it as a hilarious video where an idiot reinforces the fact that, yes, the GOP has people like this as chairs of the party.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes, geraine, you need ID's to do a lot of things, and there are generally very pressing reasons or discretion to have ID's for them.
there is not a pressing need at this point in time to require ID's to vote, because there's no significant concern about voter fraud in pretty much any of the places where these laws are being enacted. there's another extremely clear agenda behind them. it's not about preventing voter fraud.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:On subject, if identifications are free, there is no Jim Crow argument.
This isn't necessarily true. Here in Wisconsin, Republicans have been closing DMV offices even as they're requiring photo IDs. Which means that for many people, getting a photo ID also requires a car and four hours off work during the business week.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:On subject, if identifications are free, there is no Jim Crow argument. Really the only argument left, and something Republicans haven't really been able to argue effectively, is the reason WHY something like this is really necessary. There isn't an epidemic of voter fraud, though it does exist on a small scale.
I think the word you ought to use is 'tiny' or 'infinitesimal' and perhaps 'irrelevant' to the integrity of our elections. Or is there a reason why the push now, these past decade and less? Did our elections become abruptly more fraudulent? If the answer is 'not at all'-and it is-then I simply have a very hard time crediting the notion that this is being done for the cause of keeping elections clean rather than some other motive.
And what other motive is there? Are Republicans more likely, as likely, or less likely to suffer a decrease in turnout as a result of these efforts? Again there's only one real answer, I think you'll have to agree. So when you factor in that it's highly unlikely this is being done to clean up elections, and that it's highly likely Republicans will see some political benefit, my question is simply this: why is it so absurd to claim that this is simply a political gambit to harm opposition turnout?
Or are there matching programs to these campaigns making it easier-and free, everywhere-to obtain the kind of ID necessary? If so I've missed them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Not to mention that polls show the vast majority of people agree that voter ID laws should be in place.
The vast majority of people agree that minorities should be disproportionately penalised? I'm shocked!
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: As the article pointed out, many women don't bother to get a new driver's license when changing their legal name. This was the case for my wife who waited until her next renewal date to get a new card.
Getting a new license requires a visit to the DMV and a monetary outlay. A SSN card would not suffice here.
As far as I can see the article is entirely correct on its substance. Do you disagree?
Geraine, I'd like to know if you understand and agree or disagree with the point being made here. Legal name change != picture ID with that name on it.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, there's a difference between ID and photo ID. And even within photo ID, there's a difference between government issued or not.
You don't actually need photo ID for a job (voter registration card and SS Card or birth certificate are sufficient). And the I-9 form allows for a lot of different forms of ID. I'd assume other federally regulated programs requiring identification are similar. I can even tell you that in Maryland, you don't need ID for unemployment. You can apply online and enter your SSN and that is sufficient.
And many of the other things you listed, even if they require photo ID, are discretionary in that you aren't always carded when you buy alcohol or cigarettes, so you can actually buy either without ID.
Also, as Tom points out, there are logistical difficulties in getting government issued photo ID. I live less than 3 miles from the DMV. If I didn't have a car and needed to take a bus, it would take at least 30 minutes. I'd also have to take time off work - and has anyone ever gotten out of the DMV in less than 2 hours? So we're talking at least 3 hours just to get ID. And I've worked jobs where I was paid hourly with no vacation or leave - so that could easily be a half day without pay. And if you're struggling to make ends meet, you could easily not afford to go and get a photo ID, even if they're free.
That's the issue with voter ID laws.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
"After bragging in a TV interview that the state's Voter ID regulations would "kick the Democrats in the butt," and after making reference to "lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything," a North Carolina conservative activist has stepped down from his Republican Party post."
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Not to mention that polls show the vast majority of people agree that voter ID laws should be in place.
The vast majority of people agree that minorities should be disproportionately penalised? I'm shocked!
I think a lot of people don't stop and realize that they are penalizing minorities. As stated in another thread, I voted last year (for Obama) and when I walked into the room I actually had my ID out, and I was a little knee-jerkedly surprised I didn't need it.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
You do need to have an ID to register to vote--or some form of identification.
They want us to have ID to vote. Why continuously? You need to show an ID to start getting Unemployment checks, but you don't need to show one each month the check arrives.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Some form of identification" can be a utility bill with your name and address on it. Well, in most states. Which is all that should be necessary; ID requirements destroy more votes than voter fraud ever has.
quote:I think a lot of people don't stop and realize that they are penalizing minorities. As stated in another thread, I voted last year (for Obama) and when I walked into the room I actually had my ID out, and I was a little knee-jerkedly surprised I didn't need it.
When I went in to vote last year (green party LOL) the guy behind me was quite worried because his wallet was stolen the day before. He went up to the poll worker and asked if he could still vote. She said, "Of course. California does not require an ID to vote. Just sign here..."
His response? "OK. Too bad though, anyone could walk in here and vote as me!"
He'd rather he and tens of thousands of others had been unable to vote than leave open the chance that two or three fraudulent votes might get cast in the state. Of course, Fox News had probably convinced him that 30 Mexicans were waiting outside the door to vote in his name.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct: "Some form of identification" can be a utility bill with your name and address on it. Well, in most states. Which is all that should be necessary; ID requirements destroy more votes than voter fraud ever has.
quote:I think a lot of people don't stop and realize that they are penalizing minorities. As stated in another thread, I voted last year (for Obama) and when I walked into the room I actually had my ID out, and I was a little knee-jerkedly surprised I didn't need it.
When I went in to vote last year (green party LOL) the guy behind me was quite worried because his wallet was stolen the day before. He went up to the poll worker and asked if he could still vote. She said, "Of course. California does not require an ID to vote. Just sign here..."
His response? "OK. Too bad though, anyone could walk in here and vote as me!"
He'd rather he and tens of thousands of others had been unable to vote than leave open the chance that two or three fraudulent votes might get cast in the state. Of course, Fox News had probably convinced him that 30 Mexicans were waiting outside the door to vote in his name.
Eh, I don't know about all that. On the face of it, in the first few moments thinking about it, voter ID laws make good sense. Folks are used to important things needing that sort of protection-cashing a check, opening an account, being allowed to drive, flying, buying a gun-and voting is important (theoretically anyway), so it seems natural. Identity theft is a real problem.
I expect most folks don't think on it much more than that, because it seems so sensible and fits with other experiences. Which is quite convenient for politicians who do or should know that voting isn't link any of those activities at all when it comes to security. Who do or should know that there is no evidence at all that voting is likely to come under threat, either. And who definitely DO know the political advantage this issue offers in terms of turnout.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignorance isn't much of an excuse, and it's certainly no excuse at all once you've been exposed to contradictory facts or even opinions. Because at that point, you have to stop and think about the basis of your "common sense" assumption (if it's common sense, why are there people who disagree?), and if you don't do this, you leave the realm of ignorance and enter the realm of willful stupidity. I doubt there are many adults in this country who haven't been exposed to the mere existence of arguments or opinions against voter ID laws.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
Good deal. Apparently Wendy Davis is going to run for governor...I know Texas is slowly but surely sliding towards being a blue state, but does anyone think she has a chance?
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think she'll win, but I think she's enough of a wildcard that it's possible. Voter turnout is around 25% for Texas gubernatorial elections. Perry won 55/42 in 2010.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
She doesn't need to win to have a major long term impact on the state. If she captures national attention and national money, her voter registration drives, organizing and down ticket campaigning will speed up the states turn to a purple state by five years, maybe ten.
From a Democratic perspective, Texas doesn't have a demographics problem, it has an organizational problem. Having been out of power for so long, the party there is defunct and lethargic. She could really turn that around.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Not to mention that polls show the vast majority of people agree that voter ID laws should be in place.
I doubt this is true, but it doesn't have be false. The "vast majority" of people can get together and change the constitution if they're so butt-hurt over voter fraud. Otherwise, I prefer to live in a legal system where I am presumed innocent of wrong-doing, and where my right to vote supersedes your right to question my identity.
Let's examine your list
quote:
1.Buying alcohol : Discretionary on the part of seller 2.Buying cigarettes : Discretionary on the part of seller 3.Opening a bank account : Not a legal right, nor a legal obligation of the bank to get ID 4.Cashing a check : Also not a legal right 5.Applying for food stamps : Not an item of free speech, and legislated accordingly 6.Applying for welfare : Also Not an item of free speech, and legislated accordingly 7.Applying for Medicare & Social Security : Not involved with speech, legislated accordingly 8.Applying for employment : Discretionary 9.Applying for unemployment : State level and within pervue of federal legislation 10.Applying for a mortgage : Discretionary 11.Renting a house or apartment : Discretionary 12.Drive or buy a car : Discretionary 13.Get on an airplane : Not a legal right to board a plane 14.Get married : State level 15.Buy a gun : Discretionary and state level 16.Adopt a pet : Discretionary 17.Apply for a hunting license : State level, not a matter of free speech 18.Apply for a fishing license : Same 19.Buy a cell phone : Discretionary 20.Visit a casino : discretionary 21.Pick-up a prescription : Discretionary, state level 22.Hold a rally or protest : Not true on any level 23.Donate blood : legislative pervue of congress via DPH 24.Buy an “M” rated movie : Discretionary 25.Purchase nail polish at CVS : Discretionary 26.Purchase certain cold medicines : Not an item of speech, and within legislative pervue of congress and/or state level
Every single item on your list is either considered, and has been upheld or gone unchallenged in federal courts, as not a breach of civil rights. On the other hand, introducing barriers to voting involving unreasonable tests of eligibility have been consistently, and overwhelmingly challenged and struck down throughout the past century. And every time thing swing back towards trying to eliminate political opposition by intimidating voters, the courts step back in.
See, and this is the part you refuse to really get here: American citizens have a right to vote. And that right supersedes your right to make sure they're eligible. It does to such a degree that requiring a person to present ID, even such a simple sounding requirement, is a bridge too far.
And when you *know*, and I know, that requiring ID is a tactic to intimidate against the free exercise of the franchise, and not to curb voter fraud (of which there is so little as makes no impact), you have a duty as an American, as the freedom loving person you suppose yourself to be, to recognize that this intention in wrong, and un-American. What's more, it is a threat to an orderly electoral process, and a threat to democracy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I refer you back to Crawford v Marion County Election Board.
You can try to spin it whichever way you want, but the fact is there are poor people of all races and colors. They are not attempts to "discriminate" against anyone. It fits into your political narrative, so you use it.
The right to own a firearm under the 2nd Amendment is "Discretionary and State Level"....But the right to vote is somehow different now?
Orincoro, your argument is extremely invalid. States have the right to regulate a TON of federal laws, except (according to you) voting? Every single one of those things on the list is regulated by state and federal governments. Some are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. You DO have to have a permit to hold a rally on public grounds. Guess what you have to show to get a permit?
I have couple of honest question for you:
Do you think the voter ID laws are racist / dscriminatory?
If so, is it equally discriminatory or racist to ask for photo ID when performing one of the actions on the list I mentioned?
You are telling me that this behavior is not accepted because voting is a constitutional right. That, of course, doesn't make it okay that banks, airlines, landlords, the highway patrol, liquor stores, hotels, and every employer INCLUDING the Federal Government, are being racist every day when they ask for ID. In fact, given that all of those things are I listed can be considered "public accomodations" and given the liberal belief that part and parcel of being Black is a significantly reduced ability to possess valid photo ID, then of course, any photo ID requirement by these institutions is a Civil Rights violation, is it not?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: You can try to spin it whichever way you want, but the fact is there are poor people of all races and colors. They are not attempts to "discriminate" against anyone. It fits into your political narrative, so you use it.
This is contradicted by all the evidence, the Supreme Court's ruling over the VRA in fact even states that the purpose of the VRA had been "successful" in that purpose. If it has been successful, then that means there actually have been Voter ID Laws that in the view of the Supreme Court that in fact were discriminatory towards minorities.
In particular we can also go back to semi-recently when Congress reviewed the preclearance formula and overwhelmingly agreed that given the evidence it needed to stay.
quote: The right to own a firearm under the 2nd Amendment is "Discretionary and State Level"....But the right to vote is somehow different now?
Aside from that the "right to own a firearm" is only in the context of a well regulated militia... What does this even mean? The constitution doesn't describe "rights" it describes powers. The right to vote is a Universal Human Right, firearm ownership is not.
quote: Orincoro, your argument is extremely invalid. States have the right to regulate a TON of federal laws, except (according to you) voting? Every single one of those things on the list is regulated by state and federal governments. Some are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. You DO have to have a permit to hold a rally on public grounds. Guess what you have to show to get a permit?
Your not making sense here.
quote: Do you think the voter ID laws are racist / dscriminatory?
If so, is it equally discriminatory or racist to ask for photo ID when performing one of the actions on the list I mentioned?
This is a fallacy. No one is claiming what your suggesting here.
quote: You are telling me that this behavior is not accepted because voting is a constitutional right.
Its a matter of human rights.
quote: That, of course, doesn't make it okay that banks, airlines, landlords, the highway patrol, liquor stores, hotels, and every employer INCLUDING the Federal Government, are being racist every day when they ask for ID.
It can be seen to be within the interest of the public good to prevent minors from acquiring guns or alchohol; there is no public interest maintained by potentially suppressing the right to vote for thousands of people.
quote: given the liberal belief that part and parcel of being Black is a significantly reduced ability to possess valid photo ID, then of course, any photo ID requirement by these institutions is a Civil Rights violation, is it not?
posted
I'm curious as to which states have has voter ID laws overturned due to them going against the VRA. How similar were any such laws to the ones being enacted today? I generally don't support such laws, myself, but only because voter fraud has never been a problem. Thatbeing said, stupid argument is stupid.
What makes a right to vote a Right and a right to bear arms just a right that isn't that important? If everyone should have to depend on the police to defend themselves from assailants, why shouldn't they also depend on a King to decide the laws and appoint ministers? I understand that you're not an American, so I'll remind you that most of us aren't comfortable throwing out civilian rights just because some Canadian has decided that one of them isn't an Official For Real Human Right.
Geraine's argument did make sense. Free speech rights are broader then his example makes out, of course, but in order to hold a rally and exercise your free speech you do indeed need a permit in most places. He doesn't see that as being any more constricting then needing an ID to vote.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gun rights is something that any plain english reading of the constitution can show is meant for only in the context of a State regulated militia that's been perversed beyond all reason.
quote: I'm curious as to which states have has voter ID laws overturned due to them going against the VRA. How similar were any such laws to the ones being enacted today?
The point isn't that they got "overturned" its that they weren't allowed to be passed in the first place because the section in question is the pre-clearance provision. Which, we saw how immediately Texas and other states began passing stringent voter ID laws in order to suppress the vote of minorities.
We had a GOP spokesperson actually say on air that the point of Voter ID law, admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
quote: If everyone should have to depend on the police to defend themselves from assailants, why shouldn't they also depend on a King to decide the laws and appoint ministers?
Well yes, most societies do depend on the state to protect them and maintain the well being of populace, not sure what your getting at. You do know the Executive branch does the whole appointing thing too right?
quote: so I'll remind you that most of us aren't comfortable throwing out civilian rights just because some Canadian has decided that one of them isn't an Official For Real Human Right.
This supports the progressive argument that we shouldn't be throwing out the right to vote on flimsy and dubious grounds.
Also, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is largely my source as to what constitutes a "Human right", gun ownership isn't one of those.
The difference is that the State has a monopoly on violence, your right to bear arms for any and all purposes it is meant to safeguard is entirely illusory, there is never a situation in the 21st century where that right could ever be invoked by state rights fetishists and sovereign citizen loonies to actually overthrow the government. They have attack helicopters, attack bombers, tanks, armoured vehicles, poison gas, nuclear weapons and allies that has always rendered that right "moot" and irrelevant except as the unofficial right to commit mass murder in public locations.
The "right to bear arms" is the right to violence, the right to have might makes right, and the might of the United States federal government has remained supreme and unchallenged in this contest since the landmark case of Sherman v. Atlanta.
quote: Geraine's argument did make sense. Free speech rights are broader then his example makes out, of course, but in order to hold a rally and exercise your free speech you do indeed need a permit in most places. He doesn't see that as being any more constricting then needing an ID to vote.
The progressive argument would hold that both are infringements on an individual's freedom, as we saw during the Occupy Movement an almost fascist level of reprisal on peaceful protesters. Geraine supports voter id for the same reason he supports limiting public protest (whenever its not the tea Party being suppressed of course), cognitive dissonance.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the GOP county chairman actually said that he didn't care if college students or lazy blacks were hurt by the law. Which isn't at all what you said he said, if still undeniably racist. But don't let me be the one to stop you making a good point via lying about what someone said.
It's nice and all that you have a different set of rights you look up to. Americans have their own. Since they only apply to their own country, perhaps you could stop looking down on them quite so much and allow them to figure it out on their own?
Whether you like it or not, gun ownership is a right in the United States. The US doesn't have to care what foreigners think about that any more then Canada has to care what Americans think about socialized medicine.
Lastly, there are millions upon millions of people who owns without a problem. Despite your stereotype, guns are not just owned to cause Columbine like mayhem. If my sister is living alone in a bad neighborhood, I'm more comfortable if she's armed. Because despite your statist viewpoint, you really can't depend on the police to do more then call for a corpse wagon and, maybe, catch the guy.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Geraine's argument, what you said makes sense. Perhaps next time you can say it to him directly instead of dismissing his words as incoherent nonsense.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's nice and all that you have a different set of rights you look up to. Americans have their own. Since they only apply to their own country, perhaps you could stop looking down on them quite so much and allow them to figure it out on their own?
Appeal to Tradition/Cultural Relativism.
quote: Well, the GOP county chairman actually said that he didn't care if college students or lazy blacks were hurt by the law. Which isn't at all what you said he said, if still undeniably racist. But don't let me be the one to stop you making a good point via lying about what someone said.
Is "The Southern Strategy" something that's a myth to you?
He said a little bit more than "he didn't care they got hurt" he said word for word "The law is gonna kick the democrats in the butt."
This isn't a case of "one bad apple" this is just one more example of evidence in a long ouroboros long stream of what is the republican strategy to lengthen their undemocratic hold on political power, by suppressing the minority, women and college student vote knowing these groups are prone/leaning democrat.
These are not insinuations, they are facts.
quote: Whether you like it or not, gun ownership is a right in the United States. The US doesn't have to care what foreigners think about that any more then Canada has to care what Americans think about socialized medicine.
Yes, we know some Americans get awfully defensive over what they perceive to be an attack on what they think constitutes American Exceptionalism; Don't Care. This is a public internet forum and there's no borders, nationality or rights here.
quote: Lastly, there are millions upon millions of people who owns without a problem. Despite your stereotype, guns are not just owned to cause Columbine like mayhem. If my sister is living alone in a bad neighborhood, I'm more comfortable if she's armed. Because despite your statist viewpoint, you really can't depend on the police to do more then call for a corpse wagon and, maybe, catch the guy.
Your not actually responding to the substantiative point of my argument. The right to bear arms is ultimately a right to might makes right. Your example of your sister proves it, because to her, the right to not get robbed is not what she relies on, the right to have the state, whose preamble of its highest and most sacred laws states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And the monopoly of violence the state possesses is what should be protecting her, but instead she appeals to might, the might presented by owning a fire arm, ergo justifying the robbery, and likely rape, should it be insufficient, because he right to bear arms was, can be, and will be lesser to another's who choose to invest in greater armament.
That your more "comfortable" with a lie doesn't change that there's a greater truth and understanding to be found behind the appearance of things.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, we know some Americans get awfully defensive over what they perceive to be an attack on what they think constitutes American Exceptionalism; Don't Care. This is a public internet forum and there's no borders, nationality or rights here.
What? No, this really is nonsense. It's an appeal to American Exceptionalism to point out that America has its own laws that protect different rights than the ones you're describing?
C'mon dude, don't be silly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I would note that the idea being championed here, that people in different countries have different rights, and that people from different countries don't have to "care what foreigners think" about human rights *is* actually a pretty significant departure from regular foreign policy of the United States. Just sayin'
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is, actually. Or rather that attitude when espoused by the US is often widely criticized-rightly so-thus making Elison's stance even more strange.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It is, actually. Or rather that attitude when espoused by the US is often widely criticized-rightly so-thus making Elison's stance even more strange.
It isn't, because Heisenburg's argument is that since I'm foreign my 'opinion' as to what constitutes a human right is irrelevant when it is just him being defensive about criticism.
Lets put it this way, does his claim that American's don't care what foreigners think about what they think constitutes right actually *matter* in this context yes/no?
I assert its "no" and thus the "Don't care."
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
