Page 36 of 52 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 519

Thread: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

  1. #351
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Still waiting AdamT. Got anything yet?
    Sorry, even I have to sleep sometimes.

    So yes, let's get to yourinanalysis:

    http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteincen...nd-Turnout.pdf and this study: http://brennan.3cdn.net/92635ddafbc0..._i3m6bjdeh.pdf

    Your first link there does the same thing that you disregarded another study a few posts back for doing. Only analyzing 2 elections. Your second link states....
    I objected to the other study because it looked at only one state in two elections. The Alth study is probably the most thorough on the subject as it looks at TWENTY FIVE different states -- some with new voter ID laws, some with other new restrictions, and some with no changes.


    States have changed their laws so rapidly that no single analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves. Although it is too early to quantify how the changes will impact voter turnout, they will be a hindrance to many voters at a time when the United States continues to turn out less than two thirds of its eligible citizens in presidential elections and less than half in midterm elections. Which basically boils down to them talking out their ass and have no actual proof themselves past that paragraph. IE its all conjecture, opinions etc etc.
    Well no ****, Sherlock. Any time someone applies data analysis to predict future results they are engaging in conjecture. Projections, by definition, involve conjecture. But this particular author bases her predictions on a broad survey of past results.

    Originally Posted by AdamT

    The Disproportionate Impact of Photo-ID Laws on the Minority Electorate Latino Decisions
    These people are basically trying to say that if they don't have ID now then they cannot get ID period. Idiotic.
    The article says absolutely nothing of the kind. What an incredibly dishonest appraisal. All the article says is that, statistically, speaking, "minority and foreign-born voters are less likely to have a valid photo-ID. Therefore, these laws place a disproportionate and additional cost to voting for specific segments of the electorate." Nowhere in the article does it say, or even suggest, that it would be impossible for these people to obtain valid ID.

    Wow...this link jumps from religion and abortion and voter ID requirements....just...wow.
    Wow, another incredibly dishonest (or simply ignorant) analysis. The paper is about statistical methodology and they use two unrelated examples to demonstrate their model.

    In addition to developing this model in this paper, we presented two empirical applications of our
    empirical Bayes estimator using examples drawn from contemporary research problems. One of these
    problems involved an ordinal treatment variable drawn from a widely used survey (abortion preferences
    from the GSS), whereas the other focused on a variable that measured a dimension of state election administration
    policies (voter identification policies). We showed with each application the utility of our
    approach.
    The fact that they applied their model to two different problems in no way detracts from their results. Your "analysis" couldn't be more trivial.

    And so I see little point in going on. It's perfectly obvious that you either haven't bothered to read the articles, or you did and are simply too closed minded to address them seriously, or you just don't understand them. Either way you are a waste of time.
    Last edited by AdamT; 04-21-12 at 10:01 AM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #352
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Gie View Post
    Just for the record, posting a self portrait? Again?

    Now to provide obviously much needed assistance to the needy, what "stellar debaters" do is cite a study and elaborate on the points in it that relate to their "debate" of the topic. Only naive morons play the here is a link to 7,000 "studies" that support my argument idiocy. Aside from the fact that you can't articulately keep track of your own argument, you have not been able to correlate a single claim of yours with even one of the links to the "studies" you have supplied. That was before you ran downstairs and crapped on the rug.

    Let us say that we just dropped everything that has come before now in this thread. What is your argument supposed to be?
    Again, you have absolutely nothing to offer but lame ad hominem. Like your bobbsey twin, I suggest you move on unless you have something to say about the topic. If you want to talk smack I have provided an appropriate forum for that.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #353
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    08-16-13 @ 02:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    970

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Again, you have absolutely nothing to offer but lame ad hominem. Like your bobbsey twin, I suggest you move on unless you have something to say about the topic. If you want to talk smack I have provided an appropriate forum for that.
    Again you offer lame ad hominem commentary like bobbsey twin (what is a bobbsey twin supposed to be?) while talking about lame "ad hominem" commentary at the same time. I suggest you address the subject and tell me, hell tell someone or even anyone for your patron saint Google's sake, what is your argument supposed to be again? That you think anyone at all is *punting* on? Honestly, I'm telling you that I know right here and now, you can't intelligently say what your argument is supposed to be. But go ahead, show me up and prove me wrong. I triple dog dare you! Contact that Ivy League professor you had dinner with, maybe he can help?
    Last edited by Gie; 04-21-12 at 10:16 AM.

  4. #354
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Gie View Post
    Again you offer lame ad hominem commentary like bobbsey twin (what is a bobbsey twin supposed to be?) while talking about lame "ad hominem" commentary at the same time. I suggest you address the subject and tell me, hell tell someone or even anyone for your patron saint Google's sake, what is your argument supposed to be again? That you think anyone at all is *punting* on? Honestly, I'm telling you that I know right here and now, you can't intelligently say what your argument is supposed to be. But go ahead, show me up and prove me wrong. I triple dog dare you! Contact that Ivy League professor you had dinner with, maybe he can help?
    Seriously? After 36 pages you still can't figure out what the argument is?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #355
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    08-16-13 @ 02:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    970

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Seriously? After 36 pages you still can't figure out what the argument is?
    Well forgetting I asked you a similar question earlier, which you dodged, but now you are throwing back at me as if it was an original thought? NO I can't. Nor for that matter can anyone else.

    What is your argument supposed to be ?

    The only reason you can't answer that simple question is because even you can't keep up with the quicksilver (look it up) nature of your so called "argument".

    Go ahead "Stellar Debater" explain, I guarantee you can't do so intelligently, what is your Ivy League argument supposed to be? Now? This is the most obvious of all internet "debates". Either put up or shut up. Or post another picture of yourself *punting* like you have been for over a month.
    Last edited by Gie; 04-21-12 at 10:39 AM.

  6. #356
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by Gie View Post
    Well forgetting I asked you a similar question earlier, which you dodged, but now you are throwing back at me as if it was an original thought? NO I can't. Nor for that matter can anyone else.

    What is your argument supposed to be ?

    The only reason you can't answer that simple question is because even you can't keep up with the quicksilver (look it up) nature of your so called "argument".

    Go ahead "Stellar Debater" explain, I guarantee you can't do so intelligently, what is your Ivy League argument supposed to be? Now?
    Sorry, Gie, but if you haven't figured out what the thread is about after 36 pages, I think it's simply beyond your reach.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  7. #357
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

    Wait a minute, a liberal is using FNC as a source? I thought they were just biased "Faux News?"

  8. #358
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by dontworrybehappy View Post
    Wait a minute, a liberal is using FNC as a source? I thought they were just biased "Faux News?"
    You think muciti is a liberal?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  9. #359
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    08-16-13 @ 02:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    970

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Sorry, Gie, but if you haven't figured out what the thread is about after 36 pages, I think it's simply beyond your reach.
    Who the hell said anything about what the thread is supposed to be about? You lost sight of that a long long time ago. The question of mine you quoted, and which I am asking again, is what is your argument supposed to be ? I just said I did not think you could intelligently supply an answer to that question. Ergo (look it up) your last Ivy League reply.

    Uno mas...................what is your argument supposed to be?

  10. #360
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,136
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

    I notice you skipped over my response Adam, so I'll post it again:

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT
    Again, this is pure stupidity. Your argument for ID laws is that voter impersonation is rarely seen.
    Were the things I listed factual or not? If not please explain... If they were, then your response defies logic.


    As for your list, let me correct it a bit in red:


    Try this instead:

    1. is voter impersonation extraordinarily rare? Yes. False. People getting caught doing it is rare and since catching it is extremely difficult, there is no way to know the frequency in which it takes place.
    2. has voter impersonation ever been shown to change the outcome of an election? No. Since catching it is extremely difficult, there is no way to know whether it has actually effected an elections outcome or not.
    3. do voter ID laws disenfranchise millions of people who would otherwise vote? Yes. False. That is an opinion on your part based on speculation, not something that has been determined factual based on substantive evidence.
    4. accordingly, are these laws an idiotic waste of time and money? Yes. That is another opinion that you based on your previous opinion, neither of which is supported by any factual, concrete evidence.
    5. are they actually nothing more than a transparent attempt to suppress the Democratic vote? YES. That is a baseless accusation motivated by liberal/progressive political beliefs, that's totally vacant of facts or substance.
    As you see, nothing you presented is factual except #2, and it was based on a misleading premise.

    On the other hand, every one of those I listed are absolutely factual except #7, which is a logical conclusion rendered using the known facts and simple common sense.

    You're going to have to do a lot better than that to even come close to resembling someone with a legitimate argument.

Page 36 of 52 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •