Wisconsin Is Systematically Failing to Provide the Photo IDs Required to Vote in Nov

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2016, 10:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I get a little feisty and do that sometimes, and them decide not to go that route and delete it. This time it got quoted too quickly.

It's OK your thoughts were noted (of course I would dispute your assertion of ignorance and those that wallow in it). Some folks resort to insult (me too on occasion) and there are the usual suspects more than willing to add fuel to the fire. You just took the bait. 

The absolutely ironic thing is that if there were truly a measure proposed to assist the fully qualified poor in purchasing a weapon for their defense, me and the others here that have had a counter stance, would most likely do so again; we'd just be on the other side.  

[GMDino]

(10-05-2016, 10:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I missed the post of Matt's you quoted. I retract my earlier comment of the discussion being free from condescension

(10-04-2016, 01:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did Jim Crow specifically target blacks?

If your answer is yes, then you are on the road to understanding the difference.

(10-04-2016, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose a court would have to decide. Is it violating equal protection is everyone is charged to same percentage?

(10-04-2016, 02:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, being poor is a bigger burden than being rich, but just because I take 1% from each doesn't mean someone is being treated unfairly and as I said, the ID will not be "free" just because the one getting it doesn't have to pay for it.

(10-05-2016, 01:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You guys OK with subsidizing the price of a hand gun for the poor?

(10-05-2016, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I assume this is a long, no.

Does being poor make it a larger burden to exercise your right and liberty to own a firearm?

Can these voter cards be made by private companies?

Just looking for a little consistency here.

(10-05-2016, 06:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The comparison came with the bumper sticker speak of "I have no problem with my tax dollars going to ensure rights". The taxation was a seperate discussion. So to answer your question: No one is comparing taxes on the two.

And as I said, the 24th Amendment was enacted because of unequal treatment. What is unequal about charging everyone the same percentage of taxable income to acquire a voting card? The is not the same as the poll taxes that it looked to eliminate.

If the card is given to you for free, someone else is just paying the "tax" if you and others want to classify the cost as a poll tax. 

(10-05-2016, 07:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and you are making the leap that, if you are required to present a valid photo ID to vote and if such an ID is not provided for you at someones else's expense, you are being taxed to vote.

Just like the right to bear arms. No one is saying you cannot bear arms/ vote; it's just your personal responsibility to obtain the device necessary to do so.

If you the courts want to compare that to the poll taxes of Jim Crow then it is not the first, and most likely not the last time I question their interpretation on the Amendments. Last time I voted I had to present ID, this ID cost me money; was I taxed to vore?

WTS, I have conceded such a card should be paid for by others free.

Your comments still don't address thesome would be OKood with using tax dollars to provide someone with the tool required to vote, but not the tool required to exercise their right to bare arms

(10-05-2016, 09:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Oh, I didn't realize you were serious when you compared a civilian's right to bear arms to the Military. My apologies, please understand it was not a reading comprehension issue on my part.  

2. And the government does not charge you for voting, you just need to obtain the required equipment to exercise the right.. Have zero idea the relevance of the second part

3. But both are paid for by private citizens. Seems you're focusing on the dealer and not the source

4. If you say so

So you do not want to use your tax dollars to help private citizens exercise their right to bear arms, but you are OK with using them for exercising their tight to vote. 

(10-05-2016, 10:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Welp, it seems we (the courts) agree that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not one that requires enlistment in a Militia. To be honest; I'm not sure if we agree on this or not, seems you are hedging.

As to the rest merely semantics. I'm sure the private company charges for their service and just like my Drivers License, the required ID can be used for other functions. But I have conceded let's require other people to pay for the ID.

I got it quite a while back.

Let's just agree that I fail to grasp your accurate representation of your position.

WTS, the discussion with you, Pat, and even Fred has been thought-provoking and relatively free of condescension (although the reading comprehension thing pushed the envelope). I will stay this for a thread more directed to the subject matter. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2016, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Some folks resort to insult (me too on occasion) and there are the usual suspects more than willing to add fuel to the fire. You just took the bait. 

 

(10-05-2016, 10:48 PM)GMDino Wrote:

[BmorePat87]

(10-05-2016, 07:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and you are making the leap that, if you are required to present a valid photo ID to vote and if such an ID is not provided for you at someones else's expense, you are being taxed to vote.

Just like the right to bear arms. No one is saying you cannot bear arms/ vote; it's just your personal responsibility to obtain the device necessary to do so.

If you the courts want to compare that to the poll taxes of Jim Crow then it is not the first, and most likely not the last time I question their interpretation on the Amendments. Last time I voted I had to present ID, this ID cost me money; was I taxed to vore?

WTS, I have conceded such a card should be paid for by others free.

Your comments still don't address thesome would be OKood with using tax dollars to provide someone with the tool required to vote, but not the tool required to exercise their right to bare arms

Again, I'm not making the leap, the courts are. If you have to pay the government for a card to vote, you're being taxed. Kentucky allows you to use your Social Security card, which is free, so you can vote free in your state. 

As far as addressing paying for guns, I already did. We have an amendment that says you can't be charged to vote. We don't have an amendment that says you can get guns for free, just that the government can't stop you from owning them (with limitations). 

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2016, 07:25 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Again, I'm not making the leap, the courts are. If you have to pay the government for a card to vote, you're being taxed. Kentucky allows you to use your Social Security card, which is free, so you can vote free in your state. 

As far as addressing paying for guns, I already did. We have an amendment that says you can't be charged to vote. We don't have an amendment that says you can get guns for free, just that the government can't stop you from owning them (with limitations). 

This is true. I didn't even get into the 24th in my argument because we were talking more about subsidizing than taxing. But, the right to vote is specifically listed as being unable to be taxed, and any fee charged by the government can be considered a tax.

[GMDino]

(10-05-2016, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's OK your thoughts were noted (of course I would dispute your assertion of ignorance and those that wallow in it). Some folks resort to insult (me too on occasion) and there are the usual suspects more than willing to add fuel to the fire. You just took the bait. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2016, 07:25 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Again, I'm not making the leap, the courts are. If you have to pay the government for a card to vote, you're being taxed. Kentucky allows you to use your Social Security card, which is free, so you can vote free in your state. 

As far as addressing paying for guns, I already did. We have an amendment that says you can't be charged to vote. We don't have an amendment that says you can get guns for free, just that the government can't stop you from owning them (with limitations). 

I like how SCOTUS ruled in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. You must have a photo ID to vote and if not you must show that you cannot afford one.

[BmorePat87]

(10-06-2016, 01:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I like how SCOTUS ruled in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. You must have a photo ID to vote and if not you must show that you cannot afford one.

Indiana's law was good because all you had to do was go to a government office and sign a statement saying you couldn't afford the ID. Probably no more of burden on the voter than going to the office and getting a free ID.