It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Voter I.D. Law in North Carolina Stands !

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... I'd have to rule your effort a "swing and a miss" at best.


And I would label your non-answer as dodging.




posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Told ya you'd be surprised if you read it.




posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... I'd have to rule your effort a "swing and a miss" at best.


And I would label your non-answer as dodging.


SO what? You addressed a entirely rhetorical weaseling "question" directly to me as if I had made some claim about Voter ID laws being "racist" when I did not and have not. You, apparently, want to categorize any counter-argument to the "massive voter fraud - must institute IDs" lies as being related to charges of racism. You aren't making any claims or valid points, merely throwing in one-liners to imply that the argument is other than it is.

Dirty forensic pool, that.

Why don't you read back and look at what respondents are actually saying here? A user above snapped off that maybe "they can sell their Obama phones to pay for the ID" which I found to be ridiculously racist, snide and ill-placed and I said so in my response. The member then responded that they aren't a racist, which I have no way of knowing, but the comment durn sure was.

I had no interest in responding to your scarecrow ... but you goaded me into it. Feel better?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry, I must have missed your response about Canada in your reply, did you answer the question yet?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66



Told ya you'd be surprised if you read it.



So, as usual, you posted a merely propagandizing article, knowing full-well that the actual facts of the matter were entirely other than the author of your source in the OP suggested?

You work hard at this kind of thing making multiple similarly polarizing posts each day filled with garbage assertions. Easily shown to be factually baseless and merely aggrandizing the rabid right wing political agenda ... and then, when nailed down on specific facts you try to pass it off.

I really do wonder why. I'd guess it's just a flag and star count effort ... but is it more than that?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No wonder they call it a conspiracy site !!

And Political Madness on top of that !!





What's next for this case ?


edit on Aug-10-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Doubling down eh? Your question is irrelevant to the discussion. It's like asking "Why don't polar bears have an opinion of Voter ID laws?" and then proceeding to serially demand "ANSWER THE QUESTION ... WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?"

Let me spell it out for you again: I haven't made any claims about Canada or about Voter ID being racist. Why don't you ask someone who has actually made that claim.

Or better yet, why don't you answer a question or two? Are you game?
Do you favor Literacy Tests for voting? How about a requirement to own property before voting? How about further disenfranchising the American people and allowing corrupt State legislatures to elect US Senators?

It doesn't stop with a "voter ID" does it? It's all part of a greater plan.

edit on 10Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:02:27 -050014p102014866 by Gryphon66 because: Clarified.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

No wonder they call it a conspiracy site !!

And Political Madness on top of that !!





More sidestepping Foxy. Are all your similar posts made each day also in "Political Madness"?

No? Didn't think so.

But, okay, you provide ample opportunities to be able to point out the inherent dishonesty of today's faux right wing.

I still wonder why so many posts of the same propagandizing type each day.

You say that ATS is a "conspiracy site" as if that justifies posting garbage?

I thought we were supposed to be "denying ignorance" not propagating it.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Has the supreme court ever ruled that its unconstitutional to have to show ID to buy a gun? NO

Has the supreme court ruled voter ID is unconstitutional? Yes

This just gives government or in this case a political party more power and authority.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's like asking "Why don't polar bears have an opinion of Voter ID laws?"


Polar bears, despite being white, cannot be racist.

You brought up racism in regards the right and voter identification laws.
Canada has voter identification laws, ergo, Canada is right wing and racist.


Why don't you answer a question or two? Do you favor Literacy Tests for voting? How about a requirement to own property before voting? How about further disenfranchising the American people and allowing corrupt State legislatures to elect US Senators?


No.

No.

No.


edit on 10-8-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Has the supreme court ruled voter ID is unconstitutional? Yes.


Please cite the ruling.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Apparently, you misread my comment. But, fair enough, I'll engage your question directly since you were kind enough to answer mine.

There is nothing inherently "racist" about requiring identification to vote. This has been accomplished for many years in the United States by checking regular id, checking voter registration cards, having local poll workers who know and can identify local voters because they know them personally (or did you think that precinct voting was just coincidental?)

However, requiring a new Voter ID in order to vote when that ID carries a fee is basically a Poll Tax. Would you argue with that? If I have to purchase a ticket to vote, then you just charged me to vote, yes?

Yes.

In fact, I don't believe the right-wing agenda is limited to any specific race, creed, age group, sex, etc., a special "Voter ID" combined with changing election procedures, combined with other efforts which appear on the surface to only be directed at ensuring "one person one vote" but are in actuality well-conceived and well-implemented efforts to disenfranchise a wide spectrum of voters, i.e. those that routinely vote Democratic.

Quid pro quo.

Best,



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There is nothing inherently "racist" about requiring identification to vote.


Then we are in agreement.


This has been accomplished for many years in the United States by checking regular id, checking voter registration cards, having local poll workers who know and can identify local voters because they know them personally (or did you think that precinct voting was just coincidental?)


The expectation that poll workers are going to know everyone who votes at that location are not reasonable.

However, requiring a new Voter ID in order to vote when that ID carries a fee is basically a Poll Tax. Would you argue with that? If I have to purchase a ticket to vote, then you just charged me to vote, yes?


The voter identification laws that are Constitutional are those that do not charge for the identification and make the obtaining of it reasonable to all voters.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Has the supreme court ruled voter ID is unconstitutional? Yes.


Please cite the ruling.



The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax.

The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

Poll taxes appeared in southern states after Reconstruction as a measure to prevent African Americans from voting, and had been held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles. At the time of this amendment's passage, five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

The amendment made the poll tax unconstitutional in regards to federal elections. However, it was not until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) that poll taxes for state elections were unconstitutional because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

wiki

Arkansas required voter ID and a $5 for a ID



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

You said the Supreme Court ruled voter identification un-Constitutional. Where is the ruling?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I guess that's why voting precincts have traditionally used the other means listed (regular id, voter registration cards, etc) to ensure voting validity, eh?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: LDragonFire

You said the Supreme Court ruled voter identification un-Constitutional. Where is the ruling?



Dragon, you might as well clarify now, as most of us reading the discussion realized, that you were referring to those Voter ID's that institute a poll tax.

Trust me, for some folks you have to spell it out and be painstakingly specific.
edit on 10Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:37:27 -050014p102014866 by Gryphon66 because: Corrected an error.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

My state requires no identification which I think needs to be remedied. Only citizens have the franchise and one needs to be able to prove citizenship to some degree which does not place a burden upon the voter.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

He should be specific as this is how ignorance gets propagated. The Supreme Court has never ruled on voter identification.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: LDragonFire

You said the Supreme Court ruled voter identification un-Constitutional. Where is the ruling?




In the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Breedlove v. Suttles, and extended the prohibition of poll taxes to state elections. It declared that the imposition of a poll tax in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.


wiki

You support jim crow laws?




top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join