• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

Dittohead not! said:
I was watching a discussion of this topic on Fox a few minutes ago. The idea of requiring a thumbprint came up.

Now, what's wrong with that idea? Everybody has a thumb, after all... well, there may be a small minority of amputees, but surely provisions could be made for them.

and no one has to go to the DMV office to get a thumb. God gave us all two of them, along with some inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

Minnesota's governor and secretary of state are proposing this method:

With an electronic “poll book,” eligible voters who have lost an ID or no longer carry one could come to the polling place and have their electronic information pulled up from state records, Ritchie said.

He said about 84,000 Minnesota voters don’t carry photo ID, but in many cases, they would have photos in the state drivers’ database. For those who don’t, another ID could be scanned in or a photo could be taken at the polling place.

“We would not be disenfranchising anybody and we would not be breaking the bank,” Ritchie said.
Click to expand...

Anyone want to bet that Republicans drop this issue entirely once a method is found to insure voter identification that doesn't exclude a bunch of Democratic voters?
 
AdamT said:
Anyone want to bet that Republicans drop this issue entirely once a method is found to insure voter identification that doesn't exclude a bunch of Democratic voters?
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll bet.
 
Dickieboy said:
There you go...true to form...ad hom' as usual. Thanks for your consistency.
Click to expand...

Dickieboy said:
Of course another moral to this story is to not put a whole lot of worth in Karl's post. He has a tendency to cherry pick data to support his point regardless how minimally then once confronted pivots to ad hominem…(see I can practice the ad hominem too).

Maybe a more reputable source for support: [....]
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO, you argument is one ad-hom after another! :lamo

I already told you (and showed you) that the liberal Whigs started the Republican party, but you keep clinging to the 1860's definition of a Republican like my illuminating posts simply didn't exist :lamo

Everyone note that DB's argument depends entirely upon a label. Examining the underlying ideology of the person destroys his argument. Solution? Ignore the underlying ideology and rely solely on the label. One word for that -- ignorant (alternate word -- desperate, if you know that a proper analysis of the facts, in context, will destroy your argument).

So... which word, DB?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I was watching a discussion of this topic on Fox a few minutes ago. The idea of requiring a thumbprint came up.

Now, what's wrong with that idea? Everybody has a thumb, after all... well, there may be a small minority of amputees, but surely provisions could be made for them.

and no one has to go to the DMV office to get a thumb. God gave us all two of them, along with some inalienable rights.
Click to expand...
Yes, but mine can never agree on anything... you see, they're opposable . . . . . . .
rimshot.gif
 
Karl said:
Actually it was conservatives. Then, and now. Q.E.D.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Every time the leftists lose a debate, which is a regular occurence, they try to move the goal posts.

Have you no pride?
 
Karl said:
ROFLMAO, you argument is one ad-hom after another! :lamo

I already told you (and showed you) that the liberal Whigs started the Republican party, but you keep clinging to the 1860's definition of a Republican like my illuminating posts simply didn't exist :lamo

Everyone note that DB's argument depends entirely upon a label. Examining the underlying ideology of the person destroys his argument. Solution? Ignore the underlying ideology and rely solely on the label. One word for that -- ignorant (alternate word -- desperate, if you know that a proper analysis of the facts, in context, will destroy your argument).

So... which word, DB?
Click to expand...

You're relying too much on the "Whig" label while Abraham Lincoln referred to himself under the Republican label.

Lincoln was a Republican and fought a civil war based on Republican beliefs. The Democrats did not share his beliefs until very recent times and have since tried to adopt Republican beliefs as their own.

An easy way to remember is "Democrats = Racist, Republicans = Non Racist".
 
BWG said:
That's an impressive list of 30 elected black Republicans (mayors, state reps., Gov./Lt. Gov) in 236 years of U.S. history.

However, I never said there were NONE, just not many, so thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Is there a similar list for Democrats?
 
Grant said:
An easy way to remember is "Democrats = Racist, Republicans = Non Racist".
Click to expand...
And that's why Democrats pushed so hard for the Civil Rights Act - because "Democrats = Racist". :roll:

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What is racism anyway?

Come to think of it, that question deserves a thread of its own.

So, I've created one here.
 
AdamT said:
Minnesota's governor and secretary of state are proposing this method:



Anyone want to bet that Republicans drop this issue entirely once a method is found to insure voter identification that doesn't exclude a bunch of Democratic voters?
Click to expand...

Not that you don't think I'm a total nutcase already as a result of our disagreement in the militia thread (BTW did you check my response to your query about the helicopters?), my thumbprint, my retinal scan, my saliva, nor my ear wax will ever be used to identify me as a means for me to exercise my rights if I can help it. I will run for the hills before the government starts tagging me like a mouse in an experiment.

(adam, i hope you realize I am joking here, sort of)
 
taxigirl said:
Not that you don't think I'm a total nutcase already as a result of our disagreement in the militia thread (BTW did you check my response to your query about the helicopters?), my thumbprint, my retinal scan, my saliva, nor my ear wax will ever be used to identify me as a means for me to exercise my rights if I can help it. I will run for the hills before the government starts tagging me like a mouse in an experiment.

(adam, i hope you realize I am joking here, sort of)
Click to expand...
I always chuckle when I see a socialist quote Ben Franklin in their signature. What a fallacy.
 
Dickieboy said:
Yes, one more question. Do you have a breakdown of the racial make-up of the 39 districts represented?
Click to expand...

No, not handy. What difference does it make?
 
Grant said:
Is there a similar list for Democrats?
Click to expand...
I'm sure there is. One thing I can guarantee, unlike black Republicans, there are more than you can count on ONE persons feet and hands*.



*Note: normally I would only have to point out this to my grandchildren, but since we have some here that like to get 'creative', let me clarify that to mean 2 hands, 2 feet with 5 digits per appendage per person.
 
BWG said:
I'm sure there is. One thing I can guarantee, unlike black Republicans, there are more than you can count on ONE persons feet and hands*.



*Note: normally I would only have to point out this to my grandchildren, but since we have some here that like to get 'creative', let me clarify that to mean 2 hands, 2 feet with 5 digits per appendage per person.
Click to expand...

So, this absurd discussion of which party is the most racist is still going on? Sheesh! Get a life!
 
Dickieboy said:
Explaining this in full will take more time than I have at the moment. If you would read this it may explain the underlying premise:

Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans - HUMAN EVENTS

While I do not agree with the article as a whole AND some of the links are dead it does pose some ideas for thought.
Click to expand...

There doesn't appear to be much to disagree with. It's all historical fact.

Perhaps the problem is that people have become so accustomed to the political myths that the truth becomes seriously uncomfortable for them. Myths are often easier to digest than the truth.
 
Dickieboy said:
Explaining this in full will take more time than I have at the moment. If you would read this it may explain the underlying premise:

Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans - HUMAN EVENTS

While I do not agree with the article as a whole AND some of the links are dead it does pose some ideas for thought.
Click to expand...

So ... it's a right-wing blogger making the same bogus points that have already been made in this thread. Compelling. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom