Poll: 74% support voter ID laws

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

There are a lot of laws passed that 99% of people never break. Would you demand that these be taken off the books too? Necrophilia? Bestiality? Because so few break the laws don't enforce them?

FredHayek wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

There are a lot of laws passed that 99% of people never break. Would you demand that these be taken off the books too? Necrophilia? Bestiality? Because so few break the laws don't enforce them?

so now you are equating the constitutional right to vote with necophila and bestiality? Really?

FredHayek wrote: There are a lot of laws passed that 99% of people never break. Would you demand that these be taken off the books too? Necrophilia? Bestiality? Because so few break the laws don't enforce them?

Voter fraud is ALREADY against the law, Fred.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

There are a lot of laws passed that 99% of people never break. Would you demand that these be taken off the books too? Necrophilia? Bestiality? Because so few break the laws don't enforce them?

so now you are equating the constitutional right to vote with necophila and bestiality? Really?

Nope you are. I am squaring commuting voter fraud with crimes against the dead. Like the Dem habit of forcing the dead to vote.

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, why do you support voter ID? It is to combat a problem that doesn't exist. Do you think voter fraud is a real problem? Or could it be that you are fully aware these laws will disproportionately affect minorities?...minorities which are quite likely to vote opposed to your radical views?

There are a lot of laws passed that 99% of people never break. Would you demand that these be taken off the books too? Necrophilia? Bestiality? Because so few break the laws don't enforce them?

so now you are equating the constitutional right to vote with necophila and bestiality? Really?

Nope you are. I am squaring commuting voter fraud with crimes against the dead. Like the Dem habit of forcing the dead to vote.

Nope, you brought it up. And of course you have documentation to back up your statement on the dead to vote. I did not think so.

How does an eligible voter get put on the voting rolls in the first place?

HARRISBURG, Pa. -
Be ready to show ID at the polls in November.

A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday refused to stop a tough new voter identification law from going into effect, which Democrats said will suppress votes among President Barack Obama's supporters
Gov. Tom Corbett responded to the court ruling: "“Now that the court has upheld the constitutionality of the law, we can continue to focus our attention on ensuring that every Pennsylvania citizen who wants to vote has the identification necessary to make sure their vote counts

WFMZ-TV

Yep... Now we go to the appeal...

Where the opponents of the law will lose yet again given that the Supreme Court has already adjudicated this matter and Pennsylvania isn't one of the States that Obama and his AG are able to circumvent the ruling of the courts by substituting their opinions regarding what the laws should be for what the rule of law as decided by the courts is.

PrintSmith wrote: Where the opponents of the law will lose yet again given that the Supreme Court has already adjudicated this matter and Pennsylvania isn't one of the States that Obama and his AG are able to circumvent the ruling of the courts by substituting their opinions regarding what the laws should be for what the rule of law as decided by the courts is.

Even for you, that is an incredible run on sentence.

The Judge in PA made no ruling on the merits of the law or lawsuit. Instead he held that in balancing the harms, that it would be easier to stop the law if the state Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional than it would be restart the law if the Supreme court finds it constitutional. So in balancing the harms, he allowed it to stand and kicked the can to the appellate courts.

The judge also found in his ruling that it was troubling about the remarks made by the republican senate leader about their motivation for the law.