Courts toss out Pennsylvania's voter ID law.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/justice/pennsylvania-voter-id-court/index.html

Polls show 75% of voters approve of Voter ID so it'll probably return to PA in some form or another.

Plus they didn't just throw it out they sent it back to the lower court for further review it's not dead yet.

But it, along with all the others, may soon be. Read it and weep:

Yeah, but who cares about the voters, amirite?

You certainly don't care about all of the voters.

Only the legal and living ones. But who needs them when Obama's takin' care o' bidness importing a whole new set.

Certainly not Mitt Romney.

Seriously, if 75% of voters REALLY want a voter ID law, then maybe it should be considered.

But I don't believe for one second that, for the politicians pushing this, it has one thing to do with voter fraud. Anybody who even thinks it might be is a goddamn idiot IMHO.

If 75% of voters really want a voter ID law then perhaps they should also for for a tax increase to pay for all the paperwork and court time involved in getting voter ID for eligible voters who don't have it, and maybe they should consider how to get ID for all the people born in this country who either don't have or can't access a birth certificate.

If the people of a state want to impose a voter ID requirement despite the practical uselessness of such a requirement then the state should bear the cost of securing ID for eligible voters. Of course if the 75% of the people of a state want to pay many millions of dollars to solve the nonexistent problem of in person voter impersonation then that doesn't give me hope for the people of the state.

Then why are you applauding efforts to exclude some of them from voting?

What's the difference between 'Mandatory Government ID to Exercise Your Constitutional Rights' Laws and 'Mandatory Government ID' Laws?

Let's invite skin in particular to answer this one.

Why do I hate poor/brown/underprivileged people?

Because you're not smart enough to realize that the topic is photo ID?

I counted ten things I've done on that list that didn't require a photo ID.

Eh. If the DC Democrats REALLY wanted to settle the matter, they would just budget some of the bucks they love spending to provide the proper ID for all citizens. Hell, do it like they do the census. Hire a bunch of temporary workers to go wherever they needed to go to take the pics and hand out the free ID and be done with it - with the provision that the ID card was ONLY to prove proof of the right to vote and nothing else (to quiet fears of the so called "national ID card"*)







*admitedly, Congress has "revised" such things before but let's face it, many of the same folks who REALLY want voter ID are the same people who really DON'T want a national ID card so - pick which matters more to you and roll with it.

Yes. Are you stupid or something?

Same here. Well, 11, since I've never bought a gun.

The point that you don't understand what the issue is? Yes, it does. A library book? Seriously?

The big - or at least the one the proponents of photo IDs pretend to be the issue - is illegal immigrants' voting. Funnily enough, there is already something in place to prevent that:

SAVE

But anyone dim enough to think you need a photo ID to check out a library book probably wouldn't be aware of that.

How many of those are constitutionally protected rights?

Quite the contrary. Are you?

He's smart enough to know you don't need a photo ID to check out a library book. You've shown no evidence that you do.

Ouch! Never saw that one coming.

Swear to god. Never did.

Skin assumes, then, that you're against requiring photo I.D. to purchase a firearm. Any kind of firearm. Correct? Correct. There we have it. Skin has established that AlphaMan is against requiring photo I.D. for the purchase of any firearm.

Unless, that is, your logic is not consistent. Why do you want to disenfranchise brown would-be firearms owners, AlphaMan? WHYYYYYYYYYY?! Ohhhhhh, WHYYYYYYY HYYYYYY HYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!

that said, i do agree voter ID laws are seriously flawed in two ways:

1. there should be express provision to see to it there is no monetary cost to comply, whatever that entails is on the state. It should be painfully obvious that "poll tax!" is going to be the first line of attack and not heading that off up front is just moronic.

2. there should be provisions which deal with the birth certificate issue. People who get paid to make laws ought to be smart enough to arrange a "Plan B" for the VERY FEW (as a percentage) voters who are so old they don't have an official birth certificate.

^They don't even have to be that old:

http://billmoyers.com/content/voter-id-who-doesnt-have-photo-id/

So you're in favour of a photo ID requirement for purchasing firearms?

Oh, hell no. I'm not in favououououououououououououououououououououour of anything. But yes, I'm in favor of a photo I.D. requirement for purchasing firearms. Keeping them out of the hands of felons is responsible.

The fact is that every argument any member of Leftforge can make in favor of photo I.D. to purchase a gun, Skin can make for photo I.D to vote. Every argument y'all can make against photo I.D. to vote is an argument against photo I.D. to buy a gun. Pick one principle or the other, but y'all go hopping the fence from here on out and Skin will be right here to point and mock and laugh.

Oh my, what will these evil republicans do now to disenfranchize would be democrat voters!



Puhleeze.