Okay, maybe not "wrong," just out of date.

Hmm. So the stores put the policy in place before the law.
Does the law make any sense.
Would the requirement of indentification help law authorities.
There is a similar law on quantity purchases of fertilizer.... Also because large quantities might indicate bomb making... Is that wrong.
I can`t understand how either law is an impediment to ordinary people....

Wait a minute... Are we only concerned about "ordinary people"? I thought we needed to be concerned with the needs of those who could not comply with the law?

Oh wait... that only applies to Voter ID laws.

It's a shame because Ricky was so happy when he found that Maryland community newspaper article that showed his wisdom.

b

Wait a minute... Are we only concerned about "ordinary people"? I thought we needed to be concerned with the needs of those who could not comply with the law?

Oh wait... that only applies to Voter ID laws.

Well, I'll remind you and Ray that I don;t have a particular problem with photo ID for voting...Only that the ID should be free.
If the states provided photo ID at no charge, conveniently, there would be no particular problem with the voter ID laws.... The problem is that acquiring the ID costs money or is difficult for some poor or elderly...
You could then use that ID for all kinds of purposes, like drug stores. Or buying fertilizer...

I am ok with that.

At least we now know why poor seniors always have runny noses.

rickyp wrote:b

Wait a minute... Are we only concerned about "ordinary people"? I thought we needed to be concerned with the needs of those who could not comply with the law?

Oh wait... that only applies to Voter ID laws.

Well, I'll remind you and Ray that I don;t have a particular problem with photo ID for voting...Only that the ID should be free.
If the states provided photo ID at no charge, conveniently, there would be no particular problem with the voter ID laws.... The problem is that acquiring the ID costs money or is difficult for some poor or elderly...
You could then use that ID for all kinds of purposes, like drug stores. Or buying fertilizer...

Texas does provide low-income folks with a free ID. There is one catch: birth certificate required.

Doctor Fate wrote:Texas does provide low-income folks with a free ID. There is one catch: birth certificate required.

Which is a big catch for some. A surprising number of people don't have their birth certificates, and sometimes they weren't issued at all (especially for people born several decades ago).

And how do they get a birth certificate issued if they don't have one to hand? I assume it's free as well?

Ray Jay wrote:At least we now know why poor seniors always have runny noses.

Are you saying that there are no cold remedies that don't contain pseudo-ephedrine?

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:At least we now know why poor seniors always have runny noses.

Are you saying that there are no cold remedies that don't contain pseudo-ephedrine?

it's a joke.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Texas does provide low-income folks with a free ID. There is one catch: birth certificate required.

Which is a big catch for some. A surprising number of people don't have their birth certificates, and sometimes they weren't issued at all (especially for people born several decades ago).

And how do they get a birth certificate issued if they don't have one to hand? I assume it's free as well?

This is really pathetic. How does anyone get anything done without ID, without a birth certificate, etc.

So, the government is somehow obligated to give a birth certificate and an ID card to all. Wait. How will they go to get their picture taken? Better send a limo.

After all, no one should have to lift a finger in this life or take any personal responsibility.

That's the American way! What can the government do for YOU today?

Doctor Fate wrote:This is really pathetic. How does anyone get anything done without ID, without a birth certificate, etc.

Did you read the Pennsylvania ACLU cases, with several people who do not have birth certificates? They seemed to manage fine, until it turns out they can't vote this year.

So, the government is somehow obligated to give a birth certificate and an ID card to all.

Well, I thought that people were obliged to register births with the government, and as a result get birth certificates for their baby. However, when that doesn't happen (or didn't happen, or happened but the records are lost), what are the unregistered people to do? Be 'non-persons'?

And, if people are going to be required by the government to have ID, should it be down to them, or the government itself, to ensure that they can have it?

After all, no one should have to lift a finger in this life or take any personal responsibility.

That's the American way! What can the government do for YOU today?

America has not historically been a 'papers please' society. So, people don't have a habit of carrying ID apart from for specific purposes. Countries that do, which have compulsory ID, don't have a problem making people present that ID to vote. America - unless and until there is full ID - will not find it so easy.

However, I didn't think that government compulsion was the 'American Way' eitther. It's a conundrum.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 75334.html

There is much info here on photo i.d. and voter suppression that I did not know. For example, the % of people over 55 who do not have i.d. is very small. It's a much higher % for the 18 to 24 demographic. Also, one study shows that many of the people who do not have photo i.d.'s have no interest in voting anyway. There's info here for all sides of the debate.

Also, check this out: http://ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=12022

Ray Jay wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578064890976575334.html

There is much info here on photo i.d. and voter suppression that I did not know. For example, the % of people over 55 who do not have i.d. is very small. It's a much higher % for the 18 to 24 demographic. Also, one study shows that many of the people who do not have photo i.d.'s have no interest in voting anyway. There's info here for all sides of the debate.

Also, check this out: http://ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=12022

I just heard, and it makes sense, that there is no national voting database. So, how is that a problem?

There is nothing to prevent someone from voting absentee in New York and in person in Florida. To its logical extreme, there is nothing to keep someone from voting absentee in every swing state. Sure, there are "laws against such things," but who is going to catch them?

Before anyone starts the "evidence" meme or shouts, "That's absurd!" the questions are:

1. How do you know?

2. How many votes would it take to have changed the 2000 election?

3. Is it so hard to imagine a few thousand partisans willing to do anything so their man/woman wins?