If you’d have punched him in the throat you’d have probably got a better angle.
It’s something to think about for next time.

I’m just saying.

Well, it was just a working theory Ara.
Nothing works in real life like it does on the internet I suppose.

But now that we know the actual facts of the matter, I feel a lot better somehow.

Argh. Do you even READ the stuff here?

Fact: being registered in two states is not a crime. Nor is showing an invalid ID when it’s time to vote. Read the got-dang article.

As for the 2000 fiasco, don’t even go there.

[insert emoticon for eye-rolling] Ron went there, not me.

it’s pretty funny that you insist on following the party line one how photo IDs disenfranchise Democratic voters. I suppose they’re too stupid or too poor to afford the free IDs states provide?

It isn’t a matter of stupidity; if it was, everyone would vote Republican.

Apparently it isn’t a terrible burden on the “lower classes” to obtain a photo ID for tobacco and beer, but it is an insupportable burden to require a similar process to vote.

So you’re saying that if you don’t smoke you shouldn’t be able to vote, right? Furthermore (and henceforth), all 18 year olds are hereby eliminated from voter participation by decree of Casey Tompkins!

This is especially ironic in that the Democrats have been the most vocal since 2000 with respect to “voter fraud,”

Wrong again, and in a BIG way. There is a crucial difference between gaming an election and voter fraud. For one thing, the former is an all too frequent occurance; the latter is essentially an imaginary one.

Didn’t you live in Ohio in 2004? Either way, you must recall how many precincts with predominantly A-A populations had, like, one functional voting machine? It’s a story problem, Casey. Put on your thinking cap. How many people stood in line for 3 hours (or more) before leaving … and not voting?

As for this business of voter misrepresentation, I think you and I agree: there are lots of ways to verify identity without requiring photo ID. If that is the case, why go on and on about it? Why keep arguing? Let’s sing Kumbayah and get on with our lives.

As for the 2000 fiasco, don’t even go there. You’re going to claim that several hundred (or several thousand) voters were too bloody stupid to understand a simple butterfly-ballot? We used those in Ohio for decades before the psychotic rush to migrate to Diebold electronic systems. I’ll give you that much; I don’t trust Diebold that much. My own very strong preference is for optically-scanned “check in the box” paper ballots. I figure we can afford the extra several-dozen hours it might cost to determine the winner of an election over a purely electronic system.

Still, it’s pretty funny that you insist on following the party line one how photo IDs disenfranchise Democratic voters. I suppose they’re too stupid or too poor to afford the free IDs states provide?

It’s interesting that Democrats (AKA the party of Richard Daley) are the ones opposing photo IDs. I suppose they don’t appreciate how hard it is to get cigarettes or booze without a photo ID, so most normal human beings already have one. Apparently it isn’t a terrible burden on the “lower classes” to obtain a photo ID for tobacco and beer, but it is an insupportable burden to require a similar process to vote.

This is especially ironic in that the Democrats have been the most vocal since 2000 with respect to “voter fraud,” but have also been the most resistant to any measures to restrict said fraud.

We will RESIST any attempt to disenfranchise Democratic voters who are too poor or too stupid to obtain a free state ID, while at the same time we will vociferously scream bloody murder, and claim FRAUD when we lose due to machinations of the Cheneyites manipulating the vote counts!!

To put it another way: Democrats proudly point to the “will of the people” when they win, and complain about “Rethuglican fraud” when they lose. If anyone tries proposing methods to enhance reliablity -such as photo IDs- Democrats collectively wet their pants, even though state photo IDs are easily available at little or no charge.

Again, I cite the the simple fact that anyone who wants a photo ID to buy beer or cigarettes as evidence. Preventing the locals from getting their booze or smokes would cause a much bigger ruckus than any alleged “disenfranchisement” would.

Of course! And because Republicans are OK with this, it must mean theirs were stolen long, long ago.

Seriously, I think it’s a generally a good idea for an independent judiciary to restrict legislators from having the final word on the rules by which those legislators themselves are elected or turned out of office. Makes sense to me. How about you?

Studies generally show that somewhere in the range of 10 percent of voting-age citizens—or more than 20 million people—lack a government-issued photo ID. Many of these people do not drive and do not have a license, the most common form of government-issued ID. Lower-income, minority, and young and old voters are far more likely to be in this group. In that light, it is unsurprising that the Indiana photo-ID requirement was enacted on a strict party-line vote, with no Republican voting against the measure and no Democrat voting in its favor.

In short: if you think it should be easier for people to vote, you’re probably a Democrat; if you think it should be harder, you’re probably a Republican.

The souls of Democrats will be stolen by the election board if they are photographed?

Democrats can’t afford a decent picture because their expensive footwear ate up all of their disposable income for the month?

They don’t understand how to write their names in English, because nobody ever taught em?

They can’t understand how to match their own name and address to their picture, and so they don’t trust the department of Motor Vehicles to do it for them?

Nobody has told them where they live yet?

They don’t want their photographs taken because they’re afraid it might lead to a state enforced library card?

They don’t want their criminal record photo to be confused with their Rotary Club membership photo, and so just to play it safe they’d rather not, thank you very much?

They don’t feel death is a necessary disqualifier for their guaranteed Constitutional rights?

Because when they go to get a driver’s license picture that’s disenfranchisement too and you just gotta draw the line somewhere, don’tcha?

They’re afraid their cat will mistake it for a Baskin Robbins treat?

They’re afraid it will look like their passport photo, and who wants that kinda thing anyway?

They’re afraid they’ll lose it on the way to the museum of natural history and thereafter quickly suffer identity fraud?

Cameras tend to discriminate badly against Democrats after 3.3 megapixels?

I’m just throwing out some ideas here…
But I think you gotta real good case.

Ron, you and your argument are in a real tough spot.
You’re gonna hav’ta really work for this one I’m afraid.

That’s one of the most prejudiced and bigoted things I’ve ever heard you say.