Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 4 pages
Try to catch a cab after midnight.
From a legal standpoint this is closer to the truth than you think.
No citation is needed. Go to law school if you don't understand the legal issues involved.
A young white dude dressed as Eminem might not be picked up by every cab either.
No citation is needed. Go to law school
I sympathize with this, but I'd insist on expanding "farmer" to mean pretty much anyone in a truly rural area (not a suburb). When there's no such thing as animal control, and you have kids/pets/a home to protect, sometimes you have to shoot critters.
What about if you live in a city and you have kids/pets/a home to protect? The sad truth is that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. If somebody shows up at your door with bad intentions toward your wife/child, that's your ballgame. If it really makes you feel better to have a cop show up after the fact and shake his head sadly while they take pictures and notes, you are free to feel that way, but I think it's asinine.
To be fair, notwithstanding the genuinely unfair grief they received, the Nassau County Cops did respond extremely quickly when there was the Hofstra hostage situation - Just a reminder that as easy as it is to crap on them, they do occasionally face some real scary life-altering situations.
Not to minimize violent crime and the fear of it for a moment, but it often seems to me that my having a gun around and being on the alert to shoot somebody at the door is a greater problem than any it's meant to address. But I sure know a lot of Texans who live in constant preparedness for violence. I just hope they don't shoot me if I cross their property line in search of my lost cat, or something :)
Can you please give a few examples, or at least explanations, of where and how institutional racism against nonwhites still exists?
Look no further than the Republican Party and its concerted efforts to disenfranchise black voters.
.) The money for college is in education. So many colleges not only lower their standards but throw money at minority students in their endless quest for both diversity but also to give kids a chance who have shown some academic potential.
The issue is, therefore, getting to that level. As far as many blacks are concerned, there's a giant wall standing between birth and college. But if they can get over that wall, or be born on the right side of it, the effect of American race relations/politics becomes much more dynamic. For those who never get over that wall, however, allt hey get is the stick.
I think the best way to do that is tearing down the traditional public school sytem and embracing some sort of school choice system, but on liberal terms.
Can you point me to some reliable information about this? I'm not trying to be a passive-aggressive dick; I hear things like this a lot and wonder whether there's something to it or if it's just another polifight talking point. I assume this is related to the partisan fight over requiring state-issued ID to vote and such. Any good links on the subject I can read?
Of course. Leave it to a BBTF poster to find the one or two examples contrary to the statement. Yes you are correct, however Ray is still spot on...In MOST cases, they never mention if the suspects are black and the victim white, but in MOST cases will mention it the other way around.
Thanks for being pedantic, primer can be a real joy sometimes...
I know that my inbox was flooded every day with fundraising appeals that used those laws to spur donations, and it's obvious that those appeals worked.
Supporting a law that counts gun permits and hunting licenses but not a welfare card as valid ID couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with disenfranchising minority voters. No, definitely.
And perhaps one of these days the GOP will realize what century we're living in, and figure out a way to appeal to the minority vote rather than trying to suppress it.
Or student ID's from state colleges or universities.
Of course it's purely coincidental that the effects of all those "reforms" (or whatever you want to call them) is to reduce the percentage of the minority electorate.
Here's the list of college students for whom their college ID is their only form of ID:
(And if there are college students for whom their college ID is their only ID, that's even more reason not to allow college IDs for voting purposes, as colleges assuredly aren't verifying (or even able to verify) birth certificates, etc., before issuing IDs to students.)
Likely coextensive with the list of hunters for whom their hunting license is their only form of ID. Yet one is accepted and the other is not.
And felons having to wait 5 years for restoration of their vote? Oh, the horror.
Beyond the ID laws, voter suppression also takes the form of shorter hours, fewer polling places and longer lines. I'm waiting to hear a good argument why those are healthy for our country.
Really? I don't see why felons should ever regain the right to vote.
Because they served their time?
My college ID was my only form of ID for more than a year. It's not that implausible. Not everyone drives a car.
A hunting license is clearly a government-issued document. College IDs, even for state schools, are not.
I don't know why you'd want them choosing our gov't.
Yet I did not need a birth certificate to get my hunting license, which you thought so important.
I did have to show my driver's license.
I also had to provide my driver's license when I enrolled in college and received my student ID. Again, not sure why one deserves to be held sacrosanct to enable a right enshrined in the constitution while the other is dismissed, other than naked politics.
an elimination of tax credits for families if they have a student who votes in his college town, or anywhere else outside of his home town
The armed robbery and vehicular manslaughter examples don't have a thing to do with voting. If someone committed voter fraud, I would understand the impulse to legally prohibit that person from voting once he or she got out of prison. But what does a DUI or even an armed robbery have to do with deciding who the school board representative is?
struck me as really, really ballsy. And unlikely to be constitutional (I am not a lawyer).
Unless you can demonstrate that every college in America (or in a particular state) requires a government-issued photo ID before issuing a college ID, accepting college IDs is an invitation to fraud.
I should have said, I don't know why a reasonable man, concerned for the welfare of his society, would want felons voting.
Why should a person who has demonstrated that he or she can't follow a jurisdiction's laws get a say in that jurisdiction's laws?
Since you are the one that wants to make it more difficult to exercise a right in the constitution, I would think the burden would be on you. Nevertheless, everyone I ever talked about this has indicated that their college required either a copy of the driver's license or proof of identity (social security card, etc.) as part of the enrollment process. Actually, all the forms that you can use to get your driver's license. Of course, that would suggest that allowing that type of information to get a driver's license is an invitation for fraud. I suspect that fear is overblown.
Of course, my hunting license did not require a photo, while my student ID did. I am sure you are equally concerned about that invitation for voter fraud, right?
Your impulse to continue to punish people for years and even decades not only after their crime (any crime!) but after being released from prison is bizarre. I understand not wanting current convicts to vote. But you want to punish all felons for life, even if the state tells them they're free to go after a year. Not all crimes are violent, and not all of them are even a "net drain on society."
It's about registering at/near colleges attended within the state that you're from, Joe. And the constitutionality issue was apparently addressed in 1979.
Regardless, if "everyone [you] ever talked" to about this had to show a valid government-issued ID to get their college ID, then how or why is it a burden for them to just bring that government-issued ID when they vote, rather than necessitating a government examination of the practices of hundreds if not thousands of colleges vis-a-vis their issuance of ID cards?
The lack of a photo on a government-issued ID for which a government-issued photo ID was required before issuance still seems more secure than a non-government photo ID that possibly could have been obtained without showing a valid government-issued photo ID before issuance.
My college ID was my only form of ID for more than a year. It's not that implausible.
The same reason it is a burden to force someone with a hunting license to do the same.
But how do you know the person presenting the license is in fact the person who is listed on the face of it? If voter fraud, where the person voting is not who they say they are, is the concern, how is permitting identification without a picture consistent with that?
I don't see the inconsistency. I haven't said a word about gun ownership, and I'm not sure why I have to answer for "most liberals."
We should want voters to have sound judgement, and a solid regard for the good of society.
I thought I addressed this question to you earlier, but maybe it was 'JDLk' rather than 'Jick' ...
Do you believe armed robbers and other violent felons should automatically regain their right to keep and bear firearms after they've "served their time"? If not, what's the difference between that right and the right to vote?
I'm quite sure most people would rank the right to life and the right to self-defense higher than the right to vote, yet most liberals have no problem whatsoever with banning felons — even non-violent felons like Martha Stewart — from keeping and bearing firearms, which are currently the best self-defense tool available. But now we're being told that banning felons from voting is beyond the pale if not constitutionally repugnant.
In short, most liberals would rather live in Canada,
and a constitutionally entrenched right to vote that doesn't just prevent people with prior criminal records from being stripped of the franchise, but even guarantees the right to vote to inmates still serving their sentences.
There's always going to be a disconnect between the people who focus on the advantage white people garner from institutional racism, and the people who focus on the fact that whites are the only racial group in America that its ok to be overtly and publicly racist toward. I think a mature view on racial issues has to acknowledge both realities.
I was listening to NPR the other day while my (non-white) wife was in the car, and she changed the station during a piece with a black author, saying she was "offended for me" about some of the things he was saying about whites in general. She was correct in the sense that no white author could have publicly said those things about another racial group. And, in a lot of cases, that makes me upset. I don't enjoy being stereotyped or attacked anymore than anyone else.
At the same time, I don't discount white privileges either. There are valid points being made on both sides here, and yet each side is talking to the other side as though the other's position is totally insane.
The only way any of the above can be interpreted to be an effort at race-based "voter suppression" is if one assumes non-whites are lazier than whites when it comes to any or all of (1) locating their polling place, (2) going there, and (3) waiting in any line that might exist.
In my experience, liberals generally characterize such assumptions as "racist."
Also, if requiring ID is racist I'd like to see the Dems have some intellectual consistency and stop all the many other entities in our society from requiring ID and discriminating against minorities.
Republicans are in favor of stricter voter laws because they believe they will be more successful if fewer people vote. Democrats are against stricter voter laws because they believe they will be more successful if more people vote. Nothing higher than a desire to win elections motivates these positions. For either side.
Mine was my only form of ID for 3 years. I had no ID until I went to college.
The willingness of self-proclaimed upstanding citizens to ignore or even excuse the abuses convicts endure - far beyond what the courts prescribe - is disgusting. If recent (or current, but I realize that that's thoroughly unlikely) convicts had a voice in government, maybe we'd do more to prevent prison rape, or have higher standards for guard behavior. Maybe not. But it's not like these people don't have legitimate concerns in life, regardless of what they were imprisoned for.
That's a really good summary of why U.S. democracy (republic, if you insist) is doomed, actually.
I doubt republican democracy, US-style, lasts another 200 years.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.9606 seconds, 50 querie(s) executed