- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So who besides YOu decided it was a "landmark" study?
He made an "absolute" statement that photo IDs for voters was only good for ONE thing.
I suggested another and valid use for the IDs.
The authors "ONLY" was blown out of the water and the author shown to be non-objective.
YOU will have to deal with his studies failure.
Unlike you, I didn't/don't invest any faith or value in his (or yours for that matter) opinion.
You gave us YOUR OPINION about voter ID.
You did nothing to deny anything in the actual study.
I give you facts and studies while you give me your opinion. Some debate huh? :doh:roll:
As to it being a landmark study, it would have that it was obvious to any intelligent person reading it and seeing the data enclosed within it. You did read it didn't you? Did you understand it?
But to show you I am open to hearing your side, please do feel free to present your own data and your own version of what you feel is a "landmark study" on voter fraud. I will welcome it with open arms and an open mind.
Last edited: