DescentBB

Jeff250 wrote:I thought this was a thread about guns.

It's the DBB man. It always gets back to religion or politics.

Spidey wrote:It’s “not” ok to require photo ID because it hits one demographic more than another, but it “is” ok to use taxpayer funds to provide services that help one demographic over another?

It shouldn't "hit" any demographic if by hit you mean "creates problems for" or "reduces their likelihood or ability to vote." Using tax dollars to help people in need is what civilized societies do. Besides, you are comparing apples and oranges, unless the brevity of your post is stopping your point from being understood.

No…the point is to apply logic consistently.

When the pole tax was proposed everyone had to pay it, but because the tax “affected” (since you like to play dumb) some populations more than others, it was declared discriminatory.

So if something that is designed for everyone can be deemed discriminatory because it “affects” one population more than another, than something that helps one population more than another should be treated the same.


But you go ahead and play dumb, because I knew you would be afraid to give an honest answer. (you deliberately ignored the part about one over another) Yes taxpayer money is well spent helping people vote, but in order to remain consistent, it can’t advantage or disadvantage one group or another.

Problematic for sure, but if you apply some kind of logic, you must apply it all of the time, not pick and choose.

Jeff250 wrote:I thought this was a thread about guns.

I keep wondering the same thing. I'm done replying to extraneaous stuff, and apologize for feeding the trolls.

Spidey wrote:But you go ahead and play dumb, because I knew you would be afraid to give an honest answer.

Go ★■◆● yourself. The difference you are blind to is this: In one case a bad policy is made. In the other, people are removed from taking part in the discussion of policy. That's a huge ★■◆●ing difference.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:And when asking for an ID at the voting booth makes voter turnout plummet I'll listen to yours....

Oooopsie!

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/05 ... aw/371302/

See, it wasn't designed to stop black people. It was designed to make all voters show ID...completely non-racial regulation...equal opportunity. It worked, and no one missed the opportunity to vote.
In fact most places will let you vote without the ID and hold your vote as provisional until you can return to show the ID just like when they cant find your name on the roster etc.

Pfffffft! At least white boy Hutchinson had some flunkey staffer to go get his missing ID. Can't say that for many seniors without cars, or family, aren't ambulatory or have birth certificates.......

Oh, I can see the differences as plain as day, I’m just not as keen to use them to obfuscate the issue.

...........

In other words…what’s at issue here is the similarities, not the differences. The differences are obvious, but not relevant.

It doesn’t matter if the policies are discriminatory by accident or on purpose, anything that is de facto discriminatory must be handled the same way.