The DOJ Truly Serves At The Pleasure of the President

[CBWx2]

I am actually embarassed for you.  What a ridiculous analogy. In fact, so ridiculous that it only confirms my point -- AS OBVIOUS AS IT WAS -- that the Judges on the US Supreme Court no a little more about the law than CBW.

How is it a ridiculous analogy? Can you explain the differences in the two examples? You see, when you make statements like this, a reasoned explanation of your position would grant some credence to the notion that you even understand what is being argued here. I'll give you a clue, the fact that you are focusing on a Supreme Court decision is proof positive that you don't.

[Chief Joseph]

It's not based on racism - that is my point. You can't buy a decent antihistamine without an I.D. But needing one to vote is over the top? That's just ridiculous.

[dbucfan]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article852295.ece
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/item_WECdDEdtSRHFkI6NOWjXjP
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/29438284.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-22/politics/voter.fraud_1_voter-registration-acorn-workers-number-of-swing-states?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://blog.heartland.org/2012/01/polling-place-chaos-part-1-chicago/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/obama-doj-to-florida-let-the-dead-vote/

All are likely Republicans complaining about the resistance to cleaning up voter rolls, or registering fraudulent - hard to believe everyone who has reported issues is a dirty Republican Tea Bagging liar.  Well it is for me anyhow.  And these were just the first links - as one can imagine voter fraud, and voter registration fraud reports are far more than the few links I put up.  .0007 rate of frequency - maybe - but for appropriate registration and a photo idea to make it more difficult... I am not sure what the argument.  Heck, you could even call it the Airline Photo Identity card - and not even blame it on political fraud - blame it on airline security and how everyone needs it...

Yea, that last part was sarcastic...

[VinBucFan]

So your argument is now "if there was racism before, this must be racism too?" Is that the connection you're trying to make?

I'm not sure that's any better than your "if poor uneducated people aren't interested in voting, then they're being discriminated against" theory.

Actually you are incorrect on both accounts. You seem to have a talent for misrepresenting people's positions. I can only assume it is purposeful. Piggybacking on a Vince argument is rarely a good suggestion if you care to stay on point in a thread.

Also, it hasn't escaped my attention that you have repeatedly dodged the challenge of providing any proof that these new measures are necessary. I've answered your question. Care to answer mine?

CBW tool #42  -- just accuse others of "misrepresenting" you.     The guy who compared a recent Indian voter ID decision to Plessy v Ferguson . . .  . uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhh

[CBWx2]

So your argument is now "if there was racism before, this must be racism too?" Is that the connection you're trying to make?

I'm not sure that's any better than your "if poor uneducated people aren't interested in voting, then they're being discriminated against" theory.

Actually you are incorrect on both accounts. You seem to have a talent for misrepresenting people's positions. I can only assume it is purposeful. Piggybacking on a Vince argument is rarely a good suggestion if you care to stay on point in a thread.

Also, it hasn't escaped my attention that you have repeatedly dodged the challenge of providing any proof that these new measures are necessary. I've answered your question. Care to answer mine?

CBW tool #42  -- just accuse others of "misrepresenting" you.     The guy who compared a recent Indian voter ID decision to Plessy v Ferguson . . .  . uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhh

Just because you are too dense to get the analogy doesn't mean it's a poor one. Oh, wait. That's right. You never gave an explanation as to why it is a poor analogy.

Vince tool #18, attack the other guy's argument with absolutely no proof or explanation to support the attack, and then pretend as though you actually debased sed argument, even though you haven't in any rational or logical sense whatsoever.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhh

[VinBucFan]

So your argument is now "if there was racism before, this must be racism too?" Is that the connection you're trying to make?

I'm not sure that's any better than your "if poor uneducated people aren't interested in voting, then they're being discriminated against" theory.

Actually you are incorrect on both accounts. You seem to have a talent for misrepresenting people's positions. I can only assume it is purposeful. Piggybacking on a Vince argument is rarely a good suggestion if you care to stay on point in a thread.

Also, it hasn't escaped my attention that you have repeatedly dodged the challenge of providing any proof that these new measures are necessary. I've answered your question. Care to answer mine?

CBW tool #42  -- just accuse others of "misrepresenting" you.     The guy who compared a recent Indian voter ID decision to Plessy v Ferguson . . .  . uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhh

Just because you are too dense to get the analogy doesn't mean it's a poor one. Oh, wait. That's right. You never gave an explanation as to why it is a poor analogy.

Vince tool #18, attack the other guy's argument with absolutely no proof or explanation to support the attack, and then pretend as though you actually debased sed argument, even though you haven't in any rational or logical sense whatsoever.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhh

you must be lonely because you keep trying to get me to discuss.  I have learned my lesson.  No thanks. A sixth grader could explain to you why that analogy is ridiculous.

[CBWx2]

you must be lonely because you keep trying to get me to discuss.  I have learned my lesson.  No thanks. A sixth grader could explain to you why that analogy is ridiculous.

Despite the obvious similarities in maturity level, a sixth grader didn't make the charge, you did. So the fact that you come on a message board and attack arguments, and then refuse to actually support your claims with any substantive commentary pretty much casts light on your true motivations here. Think about this next time you decide to toss out that "troll" label you are so inclined to toss out from time to time.

[dbucfan]

It's not based on racism - that is my point. You can't buy a decent antihistamine without an I.D. But needing one to vote is over the top? That's just ridiculous.

As the bedlam seems to have passed - I agree with you.  That's just ridiculous. Totally ridiculous. 

[CBWx2]

It's not based on racism - that is my point. You can't buy a decent antihistamine without an I.D. But needing one to vote is over the top? That's just ridiculous.

As the bedlam seems to have passed - I agree with you.  That's just ridiculous. Totally ridiculous.

So you both are in favor of having to provide ID to buy cough medicine? Isn't that one of those silly War on Drugs laws that are typically disparaged on this thread? Interesting...

[olafberserker]

I have no idea whether they are in favor of it or not, but how in the hell did you conclude that they are from their comments?

[CBWx2]

I have no idea whether they are in favor of it or not, but how in the hell did you conclude that they are from their comments?

Because if the argument they are making is that asking ID to vote isn't invasive and unnecessary, then logically, neither is asking for ID to buy cough medicine if that is the comparison that is being made. How is that an inaccurate conclusion to make?

Also, the analogy is a good one for another reason. The purpose of that law is to limit the accessibility of cough syrup. Hmmm...

[olafberserker]

lol, you have some seriously odd logic, but oh well. 

[CBWx2]

lol, you have some seriously odd logic, but oh well.

How so? How is my conclusion off base? People come on this MB and make crack comments like this just because they disagree with a position and never back it up with squat. I'm going to make it a habit of calling it out from now on.

[olafberserker]

You calling people out?   lol    No thanks.  I'll leave the stupid, petty circle jerk debates for you and Vin.   

And I'll let those guys speak for themselves as to whether your conclusion is accurate or not.   I just don't see how you derived it from what was posted in those couple of posts.

[VinBucFan]

I have no idea whether they are in favor of it or not, but how in the hell did you conclude that they are from their comments?

Because if the argument they are making is that asking ID to vote isn't invasive and unnecessary, then logically, neither is asking for ID to buy cough medicine if that is the comparison that is being made. How is that an inaccurate conclusion to make?

Also, the analogy is a good one for another reason. The purpose of that law is to limit the accessibility of cough syrup. Hmmm...

analogies are clearly not your strong suit