Sorry, wasn't sure which list...but what you folks seem to be missing is this.Here you have committed a formal fallacy: “x” is not the causation of “y”.
If you have x number of voter fraud without I D's. and your cure is to impose a law that will eliminate x but in doing so you then eliminate y number of voters....what have you really done?
The question ya'll are having difficuilty understanding is this:
If x = voter fraud and
y = disenfranchised voters Originally Posted by WTF
Here you have committed a formal fallacy: “x” is not the causation of “y”.Yes it is, in the fact that the cure for x is the introduction of y
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Back to the question posited above: “When you were not of age, were you able to buy more beers with or without your phony ID?” Perhaps you realize it’s a rhetorical question, because everybody here knows you wouldn’t have forked out the money for a phony ID if you could have purchased beer without one. Perhaps you also realize that your example has also torpedoed one tenet of your argument, i.e., that such a measure would not deter voter fraud. I said that it would not prevent total voter fraud. I say that it will just open the door to other type of fraud but my main supposition was that it would introduce disenfranchised voters into the equation.Yes it does...it also disenfranchises voters.
On the one hand you argue that even if positive ID were mandated, anyone could fabricate a phony ID and perpetrate voter fraud. That’s simply not true. The fact is, not everyone can fabricate a quality ID that would stand up to scrutiny. Though such a product can be made, it would require an investment of time and money that would deter most ordinary (and honest) people from trying.
Just as the current system deter most ordinary (and honest) people from trying. There was no massive voter fraud. You had people incentivized to sign up dead people on the voter rolls but these dead folks were not voting . LOL There in fact was no massive voter fraud scheme.
On the other hand, your argument substantiates our argument for positive ID because the real object lesson in your little illustration is that you couldn’t purchase beer until you showed an ID. We actually used to borrow a DL that looked somewhat like us or we got that person to buy us beer.... or we stole it from out parents refridge. That is my point, with any one action there is an equal reaction. If drug laws worked....there would be no drugs! Thus, you’ve admitted the requirement to provide positive ID does provide a measure of deterrent.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
A liberal rag publishes an op ed by a liberal think tank. Ok. I guess that settles it. Pretty damn objective. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Yes it is, in the fact that the cure for x is the introduction of yYour argument remains a formal fallacy: “x” is not the causation of “y”. The causation of "y" - should it occur - is individual irresponsibility.
x = voter fraud
y = disenfranchised voters
z = total votes
a = legal votes
What we are talking about is which do you think the lesser of two evils.
z - x = a
or
z - y = a
That is the crux of the debate.
Yes it does...it also disenfranchises voters.
We are back to which equation you think best for the country or your party or your sense of fairness or for your entertainment factor....
z - x = a
or
z - y = a
We actually used to borrow a DL that looked somewhat like us or we got that person to buy us beer.... or we stole it from out parents refridge. That is my point, with any one action there is an equal reaction. If drug laws worked....there would be no drugs!
Originally Posted by WTF
WTF, it's a liberal rag quoting a liberal think tank. You can call a turd a rose, but it is still a turd.ok you are a rose petal.
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Your argument remains a formal fallacy: “x” is not the causation of “y”. The causation of "y" - should it occur - is individual irresponsibility.What is asinine is for a country to sell as many guns as we do and expect someone not to get shot ever now and then. Especially some Border Patrol agent that is up aganist folks that are making tons of money. I wish people would have cried for an investigation for say Pat Tillmans death , like they have this border agent. Personally, I do not think a one of you give a rats ass about the dead border agent. You do care about making political hay though.
Now you are trying to tell me, getting old and being poor is some form of individual irresponsibility. Look, this is nothing more than a poll tax. Just a different version. Nobody has shown any form of massive voter fraud.
BTW, your article offers no concrete proof that one person would be disenfranchised let alone 5 million. That is because the law hasn't went into effect. Hard to prove that something will happen....but folks with a ounce of common sense can tell you wtf they think will happen.
You choose to ignore it. I get it, you would rather take the chance of voter disenfranchisment than voter fraud. I take the opposite stance.
Who is going to let someone borrow their ID and let that someone vote for them? You can't steal "votes" from a fridge.
Are you naive enough to think that folks will not find a way around this? You do realize that when folks feel disenfranchised they will revolt? That is wtf happened in the ME and it will happen here.
The drug laws are not constructed to work; plus, when an administration tells you it's smuggling guns into Mexico as a way to stop the smuggling of drugs into the U.S. . . . well, that's just plain asinine. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Now you are trying to tell me, getting old and being poor is some form of individual irresponsibility...
Another of your formal fallacies.
Look, this is nothing more than a poll tax. Just a different version. Nobody has shown any form of massive voter fraud.
Posited above are a dozen documented incidents of massive voter fraud that have occurred during the history of this Republic. You have chosen to ignore or dismiss all of them out-of-hand. Furthermore, Google will easily give you scores of other example.
That is because the law hasn't went into effect. Hard to prove that something will happen....but folks with a ounce of common sense can tell you wtf they think will happen.
Your argument is all conjecture, and people receiving any state assistance, drawing unemployment, dependent on SS, Medicaid or Medicare have ID cards - it's a prerequisite to receiving those services. Hell, WalMart requires a picture ID to cash a check. Your entire argument is bogus.
You choose to ignore it. I get it, you would rather take the chance of voter disenfranchisment than voter fraud. I take the opposite stance.
Only those identified in the 14th Amendment will be disenfranchised.
Are you naive enough to think that folks will not find a way around this?
It's a hurdle for crooks. Right now there is almost nothing stopping those crooks.
You do realize that when folks feel disenfranchised they will revolt?
Only those identified in the 14th Amendment will be disenfranchised.
That is wtf happened in the ME and it will happen here.
???Maine???
What is asinine is for a country to sell as many guns as we do and expect someone not to get shot ever now and then. Especially some Border Patrol agent that is up aganist folks that are making tons of money. I wish people would have cried for an investigation for say Pat Tillmans death , like they have this border agent. Personally, I do not think a one of you give a rats ass about the dead border agent. You do care about making political hay though.
You were talking about ineffective drug laws . . . how the hell does Tillman's death relate to anything else in this thread? Originally Posted by WTF