Maybe there should be limo service to the polls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

maybe there should be limo service to the polls

---

Hi Tom,

There wouldn't be an ulterior motive operating here?

Is it the case that Republicans are more likely to overcome minor inconveniences and cast a vote? Could it also be the case that poorer Democrat supporters are less tolerant of such inconveniences and are more likely to give up?

Tut

That would be true if you go under the false assumption that Democrats are poor and Repubics are rich . There are plenty poor Repubilican leaning voters who go to the polls . This business of trying to tie it to suppression has been debunked so many times on this op ;it is getting tedious to respond.

Funny how you conservatives have debunked everything from the left, and keep losing in those pesky courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

that would be true if you go under the false assumption that Democrats are poor and Repubics are rich . There are plenty poor Repubilican leaning voters who go to the polls . This business of trying to tie it to suppression has been debunked so many times on this op ;it is getting tedious to respond.

---

No, I'm actually tying it to suppression and fraud. As I have been doing for a few posts so far.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Funny how you conservatives have debunked everything from the left, and keep losing in those pesky courts.

---

Losing to a county judge after Wisconsin's Supreme Court upheld it? Yeah, I'm real concerned about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Why can't it be the state?

---

What, do you really want the state to pay for people to personally go out door to door and make sure every eligible voter has an ID if they want one? So you really think some citizens have no obligation to lift a finger to help themselves?

You changed the rules, you make it happen. The courts agree, your process is very flawed!! Fix it!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So you really think some citizens have no obligation to lift a finger to help themselves?

---

Hello again, Steve:

You'd LIKE it to be about that. But it isn't.. It's NOT about how much effort a CITIZEN puts in, but how many roadblocks the state puts in his way...

What if some local left wing legislature made it VERY, VERY difficult for you to buy a gun?? What if you had to travel 200 miles for 8 weekends in a row in order to attend a gun safety class that isn't available in your town? What if the state made you PAY for those classes, and they weren't cheap?

If THOSE roadblocks were placed in between you and your guns, I'll bet you wouldn't be saying that crap about citizens NOT willing to lift a finger...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You changed the rules, you make it happen. The courts agree, your process is very flawed!!! Fix it!!!!

---

And when it gets court approval you'll still whine, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

You'd LIKE it to be about that. But it isn't.. It's NOT about how much effort a CITIZEN puts in, but how many roadblocks the state puts in his way...

What if some local left wing legislature made it VERY, VERY difficult for you to buy a gun??? What if you had to travel 200 miles for 8 weekends in a row in order to attend a gun safety class that isn't available in your town?? What if the state made you PAY for those classes, and they weren't cheap?

If THOSE roadblocks were placed in between you and your guns, I'll bet you wouldn't be saying that crap about citizens NOT willing to lift a finger...

excon

---

Yawn, who is going to have to drive 200 miles 8 weeks in a row to get an ID?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And when it gets court approval you'll still whine, yes?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Of the three branches, the judiciary is the only one that works... If the PROCESS is given a fair hearing, and the Supreme Court says it's fair, I'll stop whining...

If they say it ISN'T, will YOU stop?

excon

Dude, as has been mentioned repeatedly we already have an example that's been upheld, you and Tal have whined non-stop ever since I pointed it out and that Stevens wrote the majority opinion. The other states just need to make theirs mirror Indiana's and there you go. No?

The law was passed in 2005 in Indiana, and it took 3 years for the Supreme Court ruling. Using that as a time line, I doubt the laws of 2010 will take effect in time and most of them have already been struck down. Including in Texas, so specifically which state are YOU referring too?

Maybe Indiana had a better process I don't know, but its THIS election that's the focus, NOT 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Dude, as has been mentioned repeatedly [the] supreme court upholds voter id law"

---

Hello again, Steve:

Dude! As I've told you repeatedly, the issue ISN'T the ID.. That, as you've bored us with, has been upheld... The issue is the PROCESS, which has not yet been upheld, and I don't think it will be...

I don't know WHY that's so hard for you.

excon

Nothing like flogging a dead horse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Dude! As I've told you repeatedly, the issue ISN'T the ID.. That, as you've bored us with, has been upheld... The issue is the PROCESS, which has not yet been upheld, and I don't think it will be...

I dunno WHY that's so hard for you.

excon

---

Dude, I more than get your point. I believe I addressed that repeatedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Dude, I more than get your point. I believe I addressed that repeatedly.

---

Hello again, Steve:

No, you don't.. You keep on saying the issue HAS been ruled upon, and it HASN'T.

excon

Time to change horses ex that one is dead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

No, you don't.. You keep on saying the issue HAS been ruled upon, and it HASN'T.

excon

---

Hi Ex,

I agree with you on this one. How the I.D. laws are implemented hasn't been addressed. I would say this is because how the laws are introduced ( if this is the way the states eventually decide to go) cannot be addressed by reference to the Constitution.

Without actually seeing the majority decision handed down I would say that I.D. Laws are constitutional in principle.

In other words, it would be up to the states to decided the requirements for I.D. laws. This leaves open the possibility that I.D. laws ( depending on the state) can be easily obtainable or difficult to obtain.

If a state decided that all voters need to produce a letter from their great-grandmother to verify identity then this would satisfy the principle of the majority opinion handed down by Stevens.

As I have also pointed out many times before any such ruling is incapable of also addressing the important issue of equal access.

Another way of saying it would be that process is ignored because process is not being ruled upon.


Tut