Blacks are under Attack!

[Toontown]

That's the kind of crap I would expect from Rashers Lardblob or Michael the Savage Wiener. Maybe you need to turn off the AM radio for a while. You're begining to parrot the maunderings of the racist hosts.

Get it straight. There were a lot of elderly people, especially black people, born in this country outside of hospitals who got no birth certificates, but who have led productive and useful lives without any police contact or military service, who have voted faithfully in every election for decades who are now being told, "You need more than that card now. Go get your birth certificate and go get a driver's license."

Then we have turds like Walker making it hard for anybody to get ID by closing offices that issue them. Classy, huh?

Do pay attention to the real world.

How many? Couple of dozen? And for that tiny minority, all standards must be scrapped?

At any rate, people who have been voting all their lives would have established records.

 

[leftysergeant]

How many? Couple of dozen? And for that tiny minority, all standards must be scrapped?

There are hundreds. The standards can grandfather them in if they have a history of voting. The point of it is, in most cases, to exclude them.

Il Duce dosen't want a whole lot of elderly black people voting in Wisconsin this May.

At any rate, people who have been voting all their lives would have established records.

The people pushing the new ID laws are aware of their records, but still insist on documentation that many no longer have.

 

[Toontown]

That's the kind of crap I would expect from Rashers Lardblob or Michael the Savage Wiener. Maybe you need to turn off the AM radio for a while. You're begining to parrot the maunderings of the racist hosts.

Typical. You think everyone who disagrees with your politics is a fascist. FYI, I don't even remember the last time I listened to a radio. And I thought Savage was dead.

Unlike you, I feel no loyalty to any political party, and don't really give a rat's ass if the Dems lose a few votes due to voting standards. Political parties are just organizations of people who are bent on convincing voters to put them in power, so they can have the power, and hold the power, and squeeze the power, and love the power, and leach out every possible benefit therefrom. The only thing that prevents many of them from selling us all down the river is the fact that we are their power base, and we and/or the military will make them go away forever if they screw us too badly.

I agree with Lewis Black, who explained his attitude toward people who are loyal to the major political parties in an anecdote. It seems Lewis decided to drop some acid. As he began tripping on the acid, he went to the kitchen for a beer, only to discover that the wretched refrigerator had morphed into a freaking deer and was running away. Lewis gave chase through the dark snowy woods, eventually bringing the fleeing deerigerator down. As he was about to split open it's belly with a bowie knife to retrieve the beer, he was struck by an epiphany: he realized that anyone who feels any loyalty to any political party is crazier than Lewis Black on acid.

So don't you worry none about your precious Democrats losing a few votes due to any foolish standards of any kind. I have great faith in the Democrats. I am confident they could even survive a literacy requirement.

What you should be concerned about are people like Lewis Black, who think you are crazy as a freaking refrigerator-stabber.

 

[Jono]

Bob Marley was black, am I missing something?

Well you said;
"but in the US it's used exclusively to refer to sub-Saharan Bantu ethnic groups. I've never heard Americans refer to Arabs as black, or other North Africans."

Marley's racial properties came of north african extract no?

Perhaps I misunderstood your point, it just sounded to me like you said that you had never heard american people referring to North African-originated ethniticities as black. And Bob Marley, at least to my knowledge, not of sub-saharan extract.

 

[WildCat]

Well you said;
"but in the US it's used exclusively to refer to sub-Saharan Bantu ethnic groups. I've never heard Americans refer to Arabs as black, or other North Africans."

Marley's racial properties came of north african extract no?

I never heard of that before, source? That would be very atypical for black Jamaicans, who by and large came over as slaves from West Africa.

 

[Jono]

I never heard of that before, source? That would be very atypical for black Jamaicans, who by and large came over as slaves from West Africa.

I must confess I haven't really studied this bit, more assumed that he wasn't of the typical sub-saharan pools. I suppose that assumption came from considering the rastafarian/Haile Selassie sub-culture on Jamaica. In any case, I consider Bob Marley to have been black, sure. Allthough technically, he was part white.

 

[WildCat]

I must confess I haven't really studied this bit, more assumed that he wasn't of the typical sub-saharan pools. I suppose that assumption came from considering the rastafarian/Haile Selassie sub-culture on Jamaica. In any case, I consider Bob Marley to have been black, sure. Allthough technically, he was part white.

All (or at least very close to 100%) new world blacks with ancestors who were brought over as slaves are at least part white.

 

[leftysergeant]

All (or at least very close to 100%) new world blacks with ancestors who were brought over as slaves are at least part white.

Most of the slaves taken from Africa were from areas which underwent a lot of migration from across the Sahel and even across the Sahara. They were geneticly-mixed and made extensive borrowings between ethnic groups. That is part of what drove the cultural development of Mali, Guinea and Senegal.

 

[RandFan]

I don't. I merely reduced your entire argument to an absurdity, by pointing out that it is merely sane, rational, and traditional to have standards as to who is allowecd to vote. Every half-civilized country on earth has such standards.

If we grant you the reductio ad absurdum can you demonstrate that given the age limits encouraging everyone else to vote will significantly render bad results?

Presumably you have no objection to Ivan from Siberia hopping a flight to Illinois to vote for Romney.

Presumably I have no reason to believe there is any statistically significant concern that would justify disenfranchising voters.

I'm sorry but all of the hand waving, personal attacks, invective and absurd straw men won't change the fact that absent clear and present harm to the election process voter ID laws can only harm legitimate voters. So, I'll ask one more time, got proof?

 

[Toontown]

If we grant you the reductio ad absurdum can you demonstrate that given the age limits encouraging everyone else to vote will significantly render bad results?

If you grant me the reductio ad absurdum, then I don't need to demonstrate anything else. The point is that the need for standards to preserve a minimum level of voter competence has long been considered axiomatic, hence the prohibition on voting by illiterate children.

No, the founders couldn't prove that allowing 4-year-olds to vote would result in Bugs Bunny being elected president. Nor did they need to.

You are dishonestly demanding evidentiary proof of an axiomatic opinion. I've already given you proof of my opinion. Twice. I've stated my opinion. It is, therefore, my opinion. And I consider it axiomatic, just as the founders considered it axiomatic that only mature citizens should be allowed to vote. Even though they couldn't prove it by evidence.

Yet you do not apply the same standard to your own opinions, preferring instead to crouch behind a facade of ersatz "skepticism" which you only apply to the opinions with which you disagree. To wit":

You are of the opinion that encouraging everyone (except children) to vote would not significantly degrade the voter base. But you can't prove that evidentially.

You are also of the stated opinion that the ulterior purpose of the voter ID law is to cynically disenfranchise a few hundred Democrat voters. You have offered no evidentiary support for that opinion.

And so, in conclusion, what I see here is a double standard hiding behind a false mask of so-called "skepticism".

 

[RandFan]

If you grant me the reductio ad absurdum, then I don't need to demonstrate anything else.

I asked question. Could you be a dear and answer it?

If we grant you the reductio ad absurdum can you demonstrate that given the age limits encouraging everyone else to vote will significantly render bad results?

The constitution allows for us to reasonably exclude those who demonstrably are likely to render bad results.

{hand-waving snipped}

FACTS (my propositions):

1. Voting is a constitutional right for everyone not explicitly prohibited to vote.
2. Voter ID laws have nothing to do with the claims of those who wrote them and they won't prevent bad results.
3. Voter ID laws disenfranchise voters.
4. Before you disenfranchise voters of their constitutional right you must have a compelling reason to do so.

Now, you can either rebut my propositions or you can't.

Got proof?

 

[leftysergeant]

If you grant me the reductio ad absurdum, then I don't need to demonstrate anything else. The point is that the need for standards to preserve a minimum level of voter competence has long been considered axiomatic, hence the prohibition on voting by illiterate children.

We are not saying that children and adjudicated imbeciles should be allowed to vote. We are saying that making it nearly impossible for large populations of the elderly and minorities who once couild vote to continue doing so is a callous attempt to limit the number of voters who will not vote for the oligarchist candidates is a blatant attempt to disenfranchize boters.

You are dishonestly demanding evidentiary proof of an axiomatic opinion. I've already given you proof of my opinion. Twice. I've stated my opinion. It is, therefore, my opinion. And I consider it axiomatic, just as the founders considered it axiomatic that only mature citizens should be allowed to vote. Even though they couldn't prove it by evidence.

Actually, they wanted to limit it to white mae property owners, like some of the extreme right wingers do today.

You are of the opinion that encouraging everyone (except children) to vote would not significantly degrade the voter base. But you can't prove that evidentially.

This is, of course, more in keeping with a couple centuries of social evolution in this country than is your maundering about children and apes trying to vote.

 

[Toontown]

I asked question. Could you be a dear and answer it?

I already did. I acknowledged that no one, not me, and not the founders, can or has ever bothered to attempt to "prove" that it matters who is allowed to vote. It is simply axiomatic that it matters.

You really do need to stop making false pretenses. Everyone knows you can read better than that.

I consider it far more important that you prove your extraordinary claim to the effect that the only reason for the voter ID law is to disenfranchise Democrat voters.

The constitution allows for us to reasonably exclude those who demonstrably are likely to render bad results.

FACTS (my propositions):

1. Voting is a constitutional right for everyone not explicitly prohibited to vote.
2. Voter ID laws have nothing to do with the claims of those who wrote them and they won't prevent bad results.
3. Voter ID laws disenfranchise voters.
4. Before you disenfranchise voters of their constitutional right you must have a compelling reason to do so.

Now, you can either rebut my propositions or you can't.

Got proof?

This is too easy.

[1] Clarification needed: lawmakers, checked by the courts, have the power to interpret the intent of the constitution, and act accordingly. There is also the issue of state vs federal jurisdiction.

[2] Bald assertion. Denied.

[3] False. Circular argument. To be a valid voter, one must meet the legal requirements established by duly elected representatives of the people. The voter ID law, if passed, would establish said requirements. Those failing to meet said requirements would not be valid voters.

[4] Since [3] is false, [4] is irrelevant. At any rate, preventing aliens and criminals from defrauding the public (is) a compelling reason to require valid ID.

 

[Toontown]

We are not saying that children and adjudicated imbeciles should be allowed to vote. We are saying that making it nearly impossible for large populations of the elderly and minorities who once couild vote to continue doing so is a callous attempt to limit the number of voters who will not vote for the oligarchist candidates is a blatant attempt to disenfranchize boters.

And you have utterly failed to provide one smidgeion of evidence to support your extraordinary charge. Still, you have the unmitigated gall to demand evidence of me.

Cynical, two-faced guilt-by-accusation attempt noted.

 

[RandFan]

snipped

In the past, SCOTUS has held that you cannot arbitrarily disenfranchise voters. Given Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, this has changed. Absent Crawford my argument stands. I am capable of saying when I'm wrong and when I realize it I say so and apologize. Given there is no evidence of harm the laws are more likely to harm valid voters. This is a short term poly to harm Democrats. I think you know that. But, there it is, so I'll take my lumps and bow out. Personal honesty precludes me from just pretending I never saw the last post of an argument so I have to acknowledge your. That said, given your browbeating, rude behavior and refusal to acknowledge arguments made, I won't be reading anymore of your posts. But enjoy your victory nonetheless.

 

[Toontown]

In the past, SCOTUS has held that you cannot arbitrarily disenfranchise voters. Given Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, this has changed. Absent Crawford my argument stands. I am capable of saying when I'm wrong and when I realize it I say so and apologize. Given there is no evidence of harm the laws are more likely to harm valid voters. I think you know that. But, there it is, so I'll take my lumps and bow out. Given your browbeating and rude behavior I won't be reading anymore of your posts. But enjoy your victory nonetheless.

A law establishing what constitutes a valid voter is not disenfranchisement. It is simply the establishment of a standard. Essentially no different in principle from lowering the legal voting age from 21 to 18, which was also the establishment of a standard.

 

[kerikiwi]

A law establishing what constitutes a valid voter is not disenfranchisement. It is simply the establishment of a standard. Essentially no different in principle from lowering the legal voting age from 21 to 18, which was also the establishment of a standard.

So if a law established that a valid voter had pale skin, that would not constitute disenfranchisement of those with dark skin?
Or if a law established that a valid voter must be female, that would not constitute disenfranchisement of males?

 

[applecorped]

So if a law established that a valid voter had pale skin, that would not constitute disenfranchisement of those with dark skin?
Or if a law established that a valid voter must be female, that would not constitute disenfranchisement of males?

Really?

 

[kerikiwi]

Really?

It seems so by Toontown's reasoning

 

[Toontown]

It seems so by Toontown's reasoning

My form of reasoning requires a modicum of common sense. And a constitution and a supreme court to strike down your hypothetical hyperbole.