I've read enough of the gun threads on here to know that the conservatives do not accept regulations imposed on gun rights without protest, which you did with voting rules. The implication was when the legislature passes new restrictions on voting rights, the public just needs to accept, move on, and deal with it. But with gun regulations, 2A folks point out that registration and gun bans don't work, and are a burden on our rights to own a firearm, oppose closing the gun show loophole and registration of firearms, etc. And a lot of that opposition is simply based on the notion that such rules do not have any effect on gun deaths and crime, and so burdens on the right to own a firearm don't pass common sense or Constitutional tests.
But these same people expect everyone to accept restrictions on the right to vote with no questions asked, no evidence such restrictions are necessary or will do anything to reduce "voter" fraud. Most important, you were completely indifferent to rules that prevented 4 cases of fraud, but that disenfranchised 4,000 eligible, registered voters from casting a vote. Well, what is the purpose of voting rules? Is it 1) to only count the votes of people that jump through arbitrary hoops passed by any legislature, or 2) to restrict votes to eligible citizens of the U.S.? If it's the latter, which is the only reasonable goal of voting rules, and rules changes do nothing to prevent fraud, but cause 4,000 citizens to lose their ability to vote, how can you support that result?
It's not a defensible position for someone who doesn't reflexively accept government edicts without a second thought, and I know there is no other instance that I've seen that indicates you or other conservatives take that position as the default.
And whether the Texas rules pass Constitutional muster hasn't been decided. It's sort of a mixed bag out there as far as the courts go in other states.
Last edited by JasperL; 10-20-14 at 07:04 PM.
I'm missing the point. The racist party votes for policies that help blacks? That makes a lot of sense......Harry Reid's "encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination". - See more at: Reid Once Called Obama Light-skinned With 'No Negro Dialect', Media Mostly Mum
Joe Biden - "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Welfare dependency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Rights" play no role in any of this. It's about bringing in the vote for those dependent on government handouts, and their friends.
I can just as easily claim that gun "rights" have nothing to do with the NRA, etc. The 2A stuff is all about getting the votes of a bunch of redneck gun owners. Pick any issue and the same claims can be made - abortion, religion, contraception, etc."Rights" play no role in any of this. It's about bringing in the vote for those dependent on government handouts, and their friends.
Good thing TR got rid of the gerrymandered Senate with the 17th amendment.
wrong again--it started after the 1990 midterms--are you forgetting the embarrassment of Texas arresting their Dem politicians?It did not become a republican advantage until the 2010 midterms
Then you agree it's okay today--along with voter suppression to keep the minority in power.when the GOP won somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 state legislative seats. Now they are crying about it.
Very little Present Moment Awareness here .
Chemists Have Solutions .
And you're intentionally missing the point. Do you normally accept government regulations without regard to the downside of them? Not unless you're stupid, and I don't believe you are. So why would you accept any policy from government that had a 1/1,000 ratio of benefit/harm ratio, that cost citizens and government millions of dollars, millions of hours in time?
If I said some EPA rule MIGHT save 4 lives, do you think ANY measure to save those lives is worth the cost? $100 million in direct costs, plus the regulatory burden? $1 billion? $10 Billion? Etc. Of course not, and you know it.