But prospective gun buyers must provide documentation explicitly identifying them, and submit to checks of their legal and medical history, but voters must be allowed into the voting booth on the honor system.
Not sure where you live Kurt, but I did not have to show medical history. A background check was done to see if I was a felon, which I find reasonable.
I gave you the quote which requires further explanation. But, after rereading it, it must be your sarcastic way of referring to my concept of proper gun control laws which would require such things. Anonymous and I had the same initial idea, that you were saying this is a requirement somewhere. I get it now, no need to get nasty with the "genius" remark.
I would still question the rest of your wild remark: " voters must be allowed into the voting booth on the honor system."
Where has anyone suggested that? In Texas college students who thought their college ID, which was acceptable in the past, would work. They were turned away yesterday. You're OK with that? What about their rights? Aren't you willing to do ANYTHING to stand up for their rights? Or, are you really interested in some rights and not others?
I get it now, no need to get nasty with the "genius" remark.
Oh, spare me. If I can handle you calling me an "idiot," your silly ego should be able to hold up to being sarcastically called a "genius."
I would still question the rest of your wild remark: " voters must be allowed into the voting booth on the honor system."
If a requirement for a photo ID is considered too onerous (and even more ridiculously, "racist") then apparently, election officials are simply expected to assume that the would-be voter is who he or she claims to be---sounds like the honor system to me.
In Texas college students who thought their college ID, which was acceptable in the past, would work. They were turned away yesterday.
Actually, I do think it's stupid to reject a college photo ID as sufficient for voting, although I do note that the usual objection to photo ID voting requirements--that they are "racist," look even sillier in the context of the rejection of college IDs as sufficient for voting.
Blacks and Hispanics are, after all, disproportionately affected by lack of access to higher education. In fact, one could make the argument that since college students in the U.S. are disproportionately white, that rejecting college ID for voting disenfranchises white people.
It's an argument I'd have trouble taking very seriously, but I'd have to applaud the ironic chutzpah of anyone who made it.
Aren't you willing to do ANYTHING to stand up for their rights?
What would you like me to do for them? I note that although you acknowledged that Shaneen Allen was facing far more prison time than was warranted, not only did you do little, if anything, to "stand up" for her (you certainly didn't appear outraged), you ridiculed people who were outraged about the fate she faced:
Actually Kurt, no outrage at all is appropriate in the case of the poor persecuted mother-of-the-year and newest NRA poster child. None.
So spare me the high and mighty, holier than thou whining about what I'm not doing for the Texas college students (and what, for that matter, are you doing for them?).
. . . but I really don't recall referring to you as an "idiot." Please show us.
Oh, I'm sorry, perhaps I confused you by failing to mention that what you called me was a "complete idiot:
You and that lady are both complete idiots.
Now don't get me wrong--I don't mind you calling me an "idiot" (oops--I mean "complete idiot"). Quite the contrary, being called an "idiot" by you is analogous to being called a genius by someone whose respect I would want.
There is a difference between saying "you and the lady are complete idiots," which really means you are completely wrong, and sarcastically calling someone "genius," which directly disparages their intelligence.
Nevertheless, for the record, of all the put-downs I can think of to describe you, Kurt - fanatic, uncompromising, unbending, intolerant, liar - I would never seriously consider you an idiot. Similarly I would never call you an imbecile or stupid. You're anything but those things.
So, I apologize for having given you the wrong impression 8 months ago, if that's what really happened, if you really took that literally, and I promise to strive for better precision in my use of the language - you'll be my role model of course.
There is a difference between saying "you and the lady are complete idiots," which really means you are completely wrong, and sarcastically calling someone "genius," which directly disparages their intelligence.
How silly of me to misunderstand. Of course when you called me a "complete idiot," that was your way of saying, "While I acknowledge your formidable intellect, I must respectfully disagree with your position here," while when I call you a "genius," what I mean is "you're a complete idiot."
So the right to vote is pretty deadly then? So much for that meme that it's only gun rights that hurt people.
ReplyDeleteBut prospective gun buyers must provide documentation explicitly identifying them, and submit to checks of their legal and medical history, but voters must be allowed into the voting booth on the honor system.
DeleteNot sure where you live Kurt, but I did not have to show medical history. A background check was done to see if I was a felon, which I find reasonable.
DeleteKurt is one that needs deeper checking. He threatens the government with violence with his guns and then wonders why he is under scrutiny.
Delete"gun buyers must provide documentation explicitly identifying them, and submit to checks of their legal and medical history,"
DeletePlease explain, Kurt. You've already told us you never lie, so there must be some explanation for this wild remark.
What part of my "wild remark" so confuses you, genius?
DeleteI gave you the quote which requires further explanation. But, after rereading it, it must be your sarcastic way of referring to my concept of proper gun control laws which would require such things. Anonymous and I had the same initial idea, that you were saying this is a requirement somewhere. I get it now, no need to get nasty with the "genius" remark.
DeleteI would still question the rest of your wild remark: " voters must be allowed into the voting booth on the honor system."
Where has anyone suggested that? In Texas college students who thought their college ID, which was acceptable in the past, would work. They were turned away yesterday. You're OK with that? What about their rights? Aren't you willing to do ANYTHING to stand up for their rights? Or, are you really interested in some rights and not others?
I get it now, no need to get nasty with the "genius" remark.
DeleteOh, spare me. If I can handle you calling me an "idiot," your silly ego should be able to hold up to being sarcastically called a "genius."
I would still question the rest of your wild remark: " voters must be allowed into the voting booth on the honor system."
If a requirement for a photo ID is considered too onerous (and even more ridiculously, "racist") then apparently, election officials are simply expected to assume that the would-be voter is who he or she claims to be---sounds like the honor system to me.
In Texas college students who thought their college ID, which was acceptable in the past, would work. They were turned away yesterday.
Actually, I do think it's stupid to reject a college photo ID as sufficient for voting, although I do note that the usual objection to photo ID voting requirements--that they are "racist," look even sillier in the context of the rejection of college IDs as sufficient for voting.
Blacks and Hispanics are, after all, disproportionately affected by lack of access to higher education. In fact, one could make the argument that since college students in the U.S. are disproportionately white, that rejecting college ID for voting disenfranchises white people.
It's an argument I'd have trouble taking very seriously, but I'd have to applaud the ironic chutzpah of anyone who made it.
Aren't you willing to do ANYTHING to stand up for their rights?
What would you like me to do for them? I note that although you acknowledged that Shaneen Allen was facing far more prison time than was warranted, not only did you do little, if anything, to "stand up" for her (you certainly didn't appear outraged), you ridiculed people who were outraged about the fate she faced:
Actually Kurt, no outrage at all is appropriate in the case of the poor persecuted mother-of-the-year and newest NRA poster child. None.
So spare me the high and mighty, holier than thou whining about what I'm not doing for the Texas college students (and what, for that matter, are you doing for them?).
"Oh, spare me. If I can handle you calling me an "idiot," your silly ego should be able to hold up to being sarcastically called a "genius.""
DeleteI admit I've been a little loose with the name calling of late, but I really don't recall referring to you as an "idiot." Please show us.
I admit I've been a little loose with the name calling . . .
DeleteThe name calling that is against your own rules?
. . . of late . . .
Well, if 18 1/2 months ago is "of late."
. . . but I really don't recall referring to you as an "idiot." Please show us.
Oh, I'm sorry, perhaps I confused you by failing to mention that what you called me was a "complete idiot:
You and that lady are both complete idiots.
Now don't get me wrong--I don't mind you calling me an "idiot" (oops--I mean "complete idiot"). Quite the contrary, being called an "idiot" by you is analogous to being called a genius by someone whose respect I would want.
Oops--I mean 8 1/2 months ago, not 18 1/2. Sorry.
DeleteA lot of egotistical BS, especially considering you can't even count months correctly.
DeleteThere is a difference between saying "you and the lady are complete idiots," which really means you are completely wrong, and sarcastically calling someone "genius," which directly disparages their intelligence.
DeleteNevertheless, for the record, of all the put-downs I can think of to describe you, Kurt - fanatic, uncompromising, unbending, intolerant, liar - I would never seriously consider you an idiot. Similarly I would never call you an imbecile or stupid. You're anything but those things.
So, I apologize for having given you the wrong impression 8 months ago, if that's what really happened, if you really took that literally, and I promise to strive for better precision in my use of the language - you'll be my role model of course.
There is a difference between saying "you and the lady are complete idiots," which really means you are completely wrong, and sarcastically calling someone "genius," which directly disparages their intelligence.
DeleteHow silly of me to misunderstand. Of course when you called me a "complete idiot," that was your way of saying, "While I acknowledge your formidable intellect, I must respectfully disagree with your position here," while when I call you a "genius," what I mean is "you're a complete idiot."
Those ads aren't gonna sell anything.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers