I love how they keep bringing up that you "have to show an ID to buy a beer"...Bad talking point.
VOTING is a "RIGHT", not a "privilege", and BUYING A BEER is a "PRIVILEGE", not a "right."
And going to a book-signing is not a RIGHT, it's a privilege...If you don't want to show ID, don't go to the event.
Seems simple enough to me. Of course, I'm just a dumb Republican, so making distinctions between things, (like "creating wealth" vs. "creating jobs") is sometimes a bit fuzzy for me.
How about you attack the argument offered instead of the person presenting the argument for a change archer. If you have a valid counterargument to the premise that a photo-id is for the safety of both the public figure and the integrity of the vote, you have an opportunity to present it and have it heard.
Given, however, that the argument is a logically sound one, I completely understand your resorting to the Alinsky model of attacking the person instead of the argument.
Democracy4Sale wrote: I love how they keep bringing up that you "have to show an ID to buy a beer"...Bad talking point.
VOTING is a "RIGHT", not a "privilege", and BUYING A BEER is a "PRIVILEGE", not a "right."
And going to a book-signing is not a RIGHT, it's a privilege...If you don't want to show ID, don't go to the event.
Seems simple enough to me. Of course, I'm just a dumb Republican, so making distinctions between things, (like "creating wealth" vs. "creating jobs") is sometimes a bit fuzzy for me.
I just noticed who you were. Congrads on taking a new approach.
PrintSmith wrote: How about you attack the argument offered instead of the person presenting the argument for a change archer. If you have a valid counterargument to the premise that a photo-id is for the safety of both the public figure and the integrity of the vote, you have an opportunity to present it and have it heard.
Given, however, that the argument is a logically sound one, I completely understand your resorting to the Alinsky model of attacking the person instead of the argument.
I was attacking your argument....it is spin, pure and simple. And I was sincerely concerned about what all that spin was doing to you.
Logically sound? only to you. We have pointed out, over and over and over again the differences in requiring an ID for for something that every citizen has a right to do.......and requiring an ID where the security of the First Lady is critical.....but you can't see it. I still believe you and some others are really arguing for TSA like security checks for voting. I hope it never comes to that.
Was the Supreme Court spinning when it issued its decision in Crawford v Marion County Election Board as well? None other than Justice John Paul Stevens, that bastion of conservative thinking, penned the majority (6-3) opinion which said that the requirement to present a valid photo-id when voting didn't infringe on the right to vote and that it fell within the legitimate concerns of the State to safeguard the integrity of the vote. So I guess it was logically sound only to me, the federal district court, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court - along with 70% of the States' citizens who favor such legislation.
PrintSmith wrote: Was the Supreme Court spinning when it issued its decision in Crawford v Marion County Election Board as well? None other than Justice John Paul Stevens, that bastion of conservative thinking, penned the majority (6-3) opinion which said that the requirement to present a valid photo-id when voting didn't infringe on the right to vote and that it fell within the legitimate concerns of the State to safeguard the integrity of the vote. So I guess it was logically sound only to me, the federal district court, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court - along with 70% of the States' citizens who favor such legislation.
What does that have to do with liberals being called hypocrites because they oppose ID's for voting, but think it is OK to ask for ID's at the First Lady's book signing?
