Odds on Trump's Impeachment

This is an example of how neutrality isn't actually always neutral. The water here isn't all that clear. Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

Never said I was neutral! Was I wrong about liberals being out gunned or pointing out masked protestors are really not protesters..they are cowards hiding behind the 1st amendment to be destructive. Or do you want to claim them as peers.

All I'm saying is there is room true debate or maybe even an exchange of ideas. At the very least look at different point of view.

Make me understand this;

Abortion on demand but you can't put a convicted murder to death!

Everyone I know locks their doors for security but we should let anybody who wants to come to the USA.

Let's talk about voter fraud. History clearly shows that to be democratic problem. Examples Being mayor Daley and Tammany Hall. But voter ID is is the eighth deadly sin!

The right also has many contradictory policies. Common sense tells me there are many shades of color between red and blue. I'm happy being slightly right of center. It allows me to see solutions all around me!

Never said I was neutral! Was I wrong about liberals being out gunned or pointing out masked protestors are really not protesters..they are cowards hiding behind the 1st amendment to be destructive. Or do you want to claim them as peers.

All I'm saying is there is room true debate or maybe even an exchange of ideas. At the very least look at different point of view.

Make me understand this;

Abortion on demand but you can't put a convicted murder to death!

Everyone I know locks their doors for security but we should let anybody who wants to come to the USA.

Let's talk about voter fraud. History clearly shows that to be democratic problem. Examples Being mayor Daley and Tammany Hall. But voter ID is is the eighth deadly sin!

The right also has many contradictory policies. Common sense tells me there are many shades of color between red and blue. I'm happy being slightly right of center. It allows me to see solutions all around me! Originally Posted by DFWClubgoer

Abortion & Capital Punishment. You could flip thathe argument....conservatives are against abortion because all life is sacred and it's "gods will" blah blah but say go all old testament when it comes to execution. God's will not so important anymore? Not to mention the numerous times the government had to say oops after killing an innocent man.

Just saying conservatives have conflicted logic on those two issues too.


Can we cite some voting fraud issues in the last 20 years? Daley was in the 50's and Tammany hall.....really dude?

The right's argument for ID laws is that is would reduce voter fraud. However there are actually very few cases in modern times of voter fraud and those are discovered and dealt with accordingly.
The left says ID laws disenfranchise poor people. I'm not sure how it does admittedly. I don't even know their argument that demonstrates that it does.

If there was rampant voter fraud I would see the need for ID laws. Since the right's argument is that it would reduce something isn't that bad to begin with, whats the point? If ID laws have even a chance of disenfranchising those who need a voice the most, we don't need ID laws.

Abortion & Capital Punishment. You could flip thathe argument....conservatives are against abortion because all life is sacred and it's "gods will" blah blah but say go all old testament when it comes to execution. God's will not so important anymore? Not to mention the numerous times the government had to say oops after killing an innocent man.

Just saying conservatives have conflicted logic on those two issues too.


Can we cite some voting fraud issues in the last 20 years? Daley was in the 50's and Tammany hall.....really dude?

The right's argument for ID laws is that is would reduce voter fraud. However there are actually very few cases in modern times of voter fraud and those are discovered and dealt with accordingly.
The left says ID laws disenfranchise poor people. I'm not sure how it does admittedly. I don't even know their argument that demonstrates that it does.

If there was rampant voter fraud I would see the need for ID laws. Since the right's argument is that it would reduce something isn't that bad to begin with, whats the point? If ID laws have even a chance of disenfranchising those who need a voice the most, we don't need ID laws. Originally Posted by grean

When they sign up for welfare. SSI. Snap. And all the other free shit. Were they required to show id. ? Yes. So what's the fucking problem. With showing id to vote?

GOP Congressman Scalise gets shot this morning. Is this the civil war that you're asking for? Rand Paul indicated that it may be politically motivated. I'm tempted to express the most likely background of the shooter but I'm going to let it play out.

When they sign up for welfare. SSI. Snap. And all the other free shit. Were they required to show id. ? Yes. So what's the fucking problem. With showing id to vote? Originally Posted by PeterBota

Well congratufuckinglations! You made me get off my lazy ass and do some research and actually form an educated opinion.

May form another thread so I don't hijack my own thread on something else too badly.

The same thought came to mind. There are so many things that you need ID for like SSI & welfare, what is the big deal with requiring a ID to vote?

My opinion, however, has nothing to do with what else you need an ID in order to obtain something.

Turns out there's quite a large number of American citizens who do not have an ID. Voting is a constitutional right of American citizens. SSI, Welfare, buying booze, driving and other things requiring ID are not. If voting was not a constitutional right then it would be okay. However, it is. Regardless of anything else, simply not having an ID cannot revoke a constitutional right.

I pulled from the reasoning posed in a question by Justice Clerance Thomas in Voisine v. U.S. This case involves being denied 2A because of a non felony conviction of domestic violence.

Thomas asked if any other Constitutionally guaranteed rights have ever been revoked because of a misdemeanor offense. [Not trying making any argument for domestic violence here]

If a man can beat his wife and not have his 2A right revoked, how do you justify revoking the right to vote because of a lack of ID? Not having an ID isn't even against the law.


There is no voting fraud problem. If there were, that may give some credence to an ID law that restricts a constitutional right. Again though, there isn't such a problem.

Moreover, the same people want voter ID laws want less restrictions on ID & registration for guns.

Cannot have it both ways.

Jeff Sessions Testifies Before Senate Committee

His Answers: NO, NO, I DON'T KNOW, NO, NO, slow down, i can't think of a LIE that fast.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/u...testimony.html

CG Originally Posted by Copierguy0

It is interesting to note that AG Sessions is the first AG in over eight years to testify under oath, and not plead the fifth or be held in contempt.


"Loretta Lynch 'pleads the fifth to avoid answering questions' on $1.7bn payments to Iran"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4jz84ePTP

Turns out there's quite a large number of American citizens who do not have an ID. Voting is a constitutional right of American citizens. SSI, Welfare, buying booze, driving and other things requiring ID are not. If voting was not a constitutional right then it would be okay. However, it is. Regardless of anything else, simply not having an ID cannot revoke a constitutional right. Originally Posted by grean

So you feel it is unlawful to block someone from purchasing a firearm without ID because the second amendment is a constitutional right like voting?

So you feel it is unlawful to block someone from purchasing a firearm without ID because the second amendment is a constitutional right like voting? Originally Posted by goodolboy

Yes, regretfully, only to be consistent with the line of logic.

HOWEVER!

However, if there was a large problem with voting fraud, as I said before, I think voter ID's may be an appropriate measure.

As there is an issue with keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals, the same courts that strike down voter ID laws don't take issue with the need for ID when purchasing guns.

The two issues, funny enough, are tied together very closely in history.

Do you mean

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'?

One would need to be very selective to assume that this amendment, which was ratified in 1789 when muskets were the common armament, would apply to the arms of today and for every swinging dick who walks the streets. Assault rifles? Nuclear warheads? Do you really think that a person on the terrorist watch list, mentally ill or felons should be able to walk around with a small nuclear weapon or assault rifle? There are few restrictions currently, you really have to be the worst of the worst in order to be restricted from gun ownership right now.

That isn't close to common sense.

Do you mean

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'?

One would need to be very selective to assume that this amendment, which was ratified in 1789 when muskets were the common armament, would apply to the arms of today and for every swinging dick who walks the streets. Assault rifles? Nuclear warheads? Do you really think that a person on the terrorist watch list, mentally ill or felons should be able to walk around with a small nuclear weapon or assault rifle? There are few restrictions currently, you really have to be the worst of the worst in order to be restricted from gun ownership right now.

That isn't close to common sense. Originally Posted by futbolhead

You still need an ID though.

And through due process, felons lost there right to bear arms.

Not really, go to a gun show and find out how easy it is to buy one.

GOP Congressman Scalise gets shot this morning.

I'm tempted to express the most likely background of the shooter but I'm going to let it play out. Originally Posted by futbolhead

Shooter just passed from his wounds within the hour. James Hodgkinson from Belleville, IL...... word on the street has it he was a Bernie Sanders supporter.

If so, prolly "just a coincidence" (per the recent light-rail double murder suspect, Jeremy Christian), who is also a Sanders supporter / Trump-hater, right?

Right?

Shooter just passed from his wounds within the hour. James Hodgkinson from Belleville, IL...... word on the street has it he was a Bernie Sanders supporter.

If so, prolly "just a coincidence" (per the recent light-rail double murder suspect, Jeremy Christian), who is also a Sanders supporter / Trump-hater, right?

Right? Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

A quick look at this guys FB page makes it pretty obvious he was a left wing liberal.He belongs to a group called Terminate Republicans.

Argument for legalized prostitution. If a guy feel's some urge to commit violence, go get fucked by a real slutty hooker, breathe then rethink his plans.

I mean we can argue here all day about this. We all agree we would enjoy a sloppy blow job more.

Argument for legalized prostitution. If a guy feel's some urge to commit violence, go get fucked by a real slutty hooker, breathe then rethink his plans.

I mean we can argue here all day about this. We all agree we would enjoy a sloppy blow job more. Originally Posted by grean

No argument from me, sir.

I propose the new Health Deal should include coverage per the "real slutty hooker" idea (or at least make it a legitimate "write off" on our income taxes). The therapeutic upside of receiving regular BBBJ's would create a much, much more stress-free environment for all.....thus reducing health costs across the board. Win-win.