Obama the Liar at it again...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But even if I agree with your notion that getting an I'd is a burden, you still won't tell us why it's more of a burden for minorities than it is for whites. Because if getting an I'd is an equal burden regardless of color, then requiring am I'd to vote cannot be an effective way of reducing the minority vote. Try making that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This covers the subject well.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...he_polls_.html

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

This covers the subject well.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...he_polls_.html

-spence

Slate? Ha ha ha, one of the most liberal magazines/websites going.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Slate? Ha ha ha, one of the most liberal magazines/websites going.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, more centrist but covering a range of topics beyond politics. They offer positions all over the map…

Try reading it once, some interesting articles at times.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This covers the subject well.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...he_polls_.html

-spence

No, it does not cover it well, because it only discusses drivers licenses. As we all know (and if you didn't know before, now you do), in recognition of the fact that people who don't drive still need a photo id for a myriad of purposes, every state allows you to get a photo id that is not a drivers license. You need this to buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, cash a check, pick up a prescription, get a library card, etc...

So Spence, tell me in your own words please, why are minorities less likely to get this id? Why is it harder for blacks who don't drive to get this id, than it is for whites who don't drive?

There is no possible answer to this question, unless you feel blacks are much more disenfranchised from society than whites, and if that's the case, they probably won't vote anyway.

Go ahead. Tell me why blacks are less likely to get this id.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There is no possible answer to this question, unless you feel blacks are much more disenfranchised from society than whites, and if that's the case, they probably won't vote anyway.

Go ahead. Tell me why blacks are less likely to get this id.

If you don't need a drivers license what's the motivation to get another ID? If you're poor you probably don't need one. Operate on cash, don't frequent liquor stores that check.

Doesn't mean you still don't vote.

A lot of minorities some do feel very disenfranchised…some don't.

Still, why do we need more legislation to fix a problem there's not evidence is significant? You still haven't addressed that.

-spence

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;1039511

Still, why do we need more legislation to fix a problem there's not evidence is significant? You still haven't addressed that.

-spence[/QUOTE]

I don't understand you Spence. You've never heard of Acorn, you never heard of the goings-on up in New Hampshire, the bussing in of people to vote .
You saying it never happened over and over again doesn't mean sh$t.
I could google hundreds of instances of voter fraud . On both sides . It happens .
You haven't provided any evidence that the poor would be "disenfranchised " by this. Just that your mom once didn't have an ID

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

You haven't provided any evidence that the poor would be "disenfranchised " by this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because he can't. Because the ONLY way to support the notion that blacks would be less likely to get ids than whites, is to believe that blacks are lazier and less willing to obey the rules, than whites. This must be true if liberals are correct that requiring id's would effect blacks more than it effects whites. But they won't say it out loud. because it's racist. This is the common liberal "soft bigotry of lower expectations" of those who aren't as white as you are.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you don't need a drivers license what's the motivation to get another ID? If you're poor you probably don't need one. Operate on cash, don't frequent liquor stores that check.

Doesn't mean you still don't vote.

A lot of minorities some do feel very disenfranchised…some don't.

Still, why do we need more legislation to fix a problem there's not evidence is significant? You still haven't addressed that.

-spence

"If you don't need a drivers license what's the motivation to get another ID?"

We have covered this, and you know that. There are lots of needs for a photo id besides driving. For God's sake, you yourself said that even though your mom didn't drive, eventually she needed a photo id. And what did she do? She went and got one. No big deal, right?

You refuse to answer my question. Why does the requirement of a photo id suppress more black votes than white votes? Because that is necessarily what liberals believe here, right?

There are only 2 possible answers. Either (1) the government makes it easier for whites to get the ids than it is for blacks (and no one is saying that), or (2) you think blacks are more likely to be too lazy to get the id, than whites. That is necessarily the foundation of the liberal notion that conservatives are trying to suppress minority votes here, and that's racist.

"A lot of minorities some do feel very disenfranchised" If that's true, and I concede it is, then it stands to reason that those disenfranchised citizens, who can't be bothered to get an id, will not likely vote either way. So there's no suppression.

Here's another thing. Many states have recently passed the voter id requirements. If the requirement is a blatant attempt to suppress the minority vote, then there must be ample data in those states to support that. Where is the data to show that after those states started requiring ids, that minority voting decreased by a larger amount than white voting?

I have never, not once, seen someone opposed to the id requirement, provide such data. I presume that no such data exists. Therefore, the liberal notion that conservatives are out to bring back Jim Crow laws, is BS designed to demonize the political opposition. Why? Because those Dems in the know, realize that they are in serious trouble in 2014. They are truly desperate. So instead of trying to honestly explain to us why their ideas are actually better, they play the race card. One day, that may blow up in their faces.

You, specifically, are utterly embarrassing yourself on this thread. You claim your Mom got an id for her own needs, and then you ask why anyone who doesn't drive would ever need an id? Anything, ANYTHING (even contradicting what you said earlier) to avoid having to admit that I'm right, and that your side is engaging in the ugliest kind of political smear tactics.

Bill Clinton is in favor of photo ids to vote. You're telling me that he wants to suppress the minority vote?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bill Clinton is in favor of photo ids to vote. You're telling me that he wants to suppress the minority vote?

You should read what Clinton really said rather than what someone wants you to think he said.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You should read what Clinton really said rather than what someone wants you to think he said.

-spence

From the Washington Times...

Clinton said, putting photos on Social Security cards would represent 'a way forward that eliminates error,' without having to 'paralyze and divide a country with significant challenges.'”

Now, since you keep refusing to answer my question, I'll make it a nice fill-in-the-blank.

"Conservatives want to require a photo id to vote. This would apply equally to all, regardless of color. Those who don't drive can get another government-issued id. Blacks and whites will have equal access to these id's. Yet, I, Spence, claim this will disproportionately effect blacks because __________________"

Stop saying that it's a racist plot just because Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz say so. Tell me in your own words, please, where the racism comes into play.

You really, really backed yourself into a corner here.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

From the Washington Times...

Clinton said, putting photos on Social Security cards would represent 'a way forward that eliminates error,' without having to 'paralyze and divide a country with significant challenges.'”

Now, since you keep refusing to answer my question, I'll make it a nice fill-in-the-blank.

"Conservatives want to require a photo id to vote. This would apply equally to all, regardless of color. Those who don't drive can get another government-issued id. Blacks and whites will have equal access to these id's. Yet, I, Spence, claim this will disproportionately effect blacks because __________________"

Stop saying that it's a racist plot just because Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz say so. Tell me in your own words, please, where the racism comes into play.

You really, really backed yourself into a corner here.

Actually no, you validated my assumption that you're opinion is based off of what someone else wants you to believe. Let's go to the tape...

“Any time you erect a barrier to political participation that disproportionately affects people based on their race or their physical capacity or their income — or whether they've got a car to drive far enough and can afford the gasoline to get to a place where they can get an approved photo ID — any time you do any of that ... it undermines the sprit of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act,”

Bill Clinton - 9/14

Jim, Clinton was speaking out against voter ID laws, but suggested that a photographic SS card could be a way to ease potential voter suppression caused by state laws.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you.

-spence