Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

IDs, egos, superegos

Needing a picture ID to vote, leftist judges and the Obama Justice Department keep telling us, is a substantial impairment and therefore can’t be enforced.  And yet, here are a number of other activities requiring a picture ID — all of which, I suspect, should now be ruled unfairly prejudicial to the  poor, long-suffering rural folk who exist mainly in the partisan, hyper-political brains of progressive ideologues.  With thanks to rjacobse and BBH:

 

* Enter a court house
* Hire a lawyer or para-legal
* File a suit
* File for divorce
* File for business ownership
* Run for office
* Enter a Social Security building
* File for state disability
* file for Federal disability
* Check into a hospital
* Use Medicare health for insurance
* Pay state taxes
* Pay Federal taxes
* Pay city taxes
* Purchase ammunition
* Purchase explosives
* Purchase hazardous chemicals
* Dispose of hazardous chemicals
* Dispose of explosives
* Enter a nuclear power plant
* Enter the CIA
* Enter the NSA
* Enter the Pentagon
* Enter the Capital building
* Enter the White House
* Enter the National archives
* Apply for a flight license
* Join the military
* Compete in the Olympics
* Join almost any organization
* Register with a political party
* Register a species with the AKA
* Apply for a masseuse license
* Apply for an acupuncture license

• Purchase tobacco products
• Purchase alcohol
• Purchase Sudafed
• Pay with a check
• Check in to a hotel
• Travel on an airline
• Open a bank account
• Take a tour of the White House
• Get prescriptions filled
• Apply for food stamps (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10101.html#howapply)
• Apply for a library card
• Enter the main headquarters of the Department of Justice in Washington to “petition the Government.”
• Apply for a passport
• Get medical care [Not sure if this is just common practice, or if it’s now required by law]
• Go to an R-rated movie
• Go to a strip show/watch “exotic dancers”
• Adopt a pet
• Purchase a home
• Purchase a car
• Purchase a gun
• Apply for a loan
• Receive a marriage license
• Drive
• Get a job
• Get a post office box
• Get a hunting license
• Get a fishing license
• Get a business license
• Rent an apartment
• Rent a car
• Rent tools and equipment
• Rent furniture
• Receive welfare
• Receive Social Security benefits
• Enter a casino
• Enter a bar
• Attend college
• Get utilities for your residence turned on
• Pick up a package from the US Post Office, UPS, or Fedex
• Sell scrap copper
• Re-enter the U.S. from Canada
• Obtain copies of your own medical records
• Get a free meal from a restaurant on your birthday
• Vote in a union election (http://electionlawcenter.com/2011/12/10/union-elections-require-a-photo-id-to-vote.aspx?mid=54)
• Get a document notarized
• Order a certified copy of a birth or death record
• Attend an Obama fundraiser

* Register for a liquor license

Feel free to pile on in the comments, and I’ll keep the list updated.

193 Replies to “IDs, egos, superegos”

  1. leigh says:

    Enter a county jail or federal prison to visit clients or relatives.

  2. BT says:

    Pick up your child/grandchild from school, daycare or summer camp.

  3. McGehee says:

    Convince a deputy sheriff his arrest warrant isn’t for you just because you answered the door at the address he was given.

    Okay, I showed it to him without being asked, but I knew he wouldn’t believe me if I just stood there telling him, “Ain’t me man, you got the wrong guy.” I’ve watched “Cops.”

  4. palaeomerus says:

    Pay for a new huge neck tattoo with a check.

  5. subconch says:

    Pay by credit card at U.S. Post Office.

  6. leigh says:

    Board an airplane.

    Visit intensive care units or psychiatric units at hospitals.

  7. leigh says:

    Pala: It started with a neck tattoo.

  8. daveinsocal says:

    Donate blood.

  9. leigh says:

    Cash a check.

  10. BigBangHunter says:

    – Additionally, for a number of things on the list you gnerally are required to show a second form of ID, in many cases your social security card must be produced, not just writing it down on a form, such as employment. A few more:

    * Cashing a bank check/money order/SSI check/Welfare check with or without an account

    * Collecting a lottery ticket over a certain amount (varies with state)

    * Inter bank transfers
    * All realestate legal transactions
    * Filing a will
    * Most auction activities
    * Pawn shop transactions
    * Almost all boating rentals (i.e. paddleboats, skiffs, row noats, catamarans, sloops, fishing boat excursions, ect.
    * Booking any type of Ocean excursions or tours, and when you board

  11. BigBangHunter says:

    * Sending or recieving a Money gram/ Western Union

  12. George Orwell says:

    I know one place you didn’t need an ID. When donating to Obama’s campaign online via credit card.

    Sweetfuckall, you didn’t even need to be an American.

  13. […] Protein Wisdom has a pretty substantial list. A few standouts: […]

  14. BigBangHunter says:

    * Situations when you probably wouldn’t need any ID

    – You are a Prometheus Avitar.
    – You are a John/Jane Doe camotose in an iron lung on life support.
    – Hiding in a hood crack house, and momma cashes the welfare checks using bogus ID.
    – Living in a commune in Or-ree-gone.
    – You died and were burried last November.
    – You are President of the United Sates, and no one knows where you were born.

  15. George Orwell says:

    – You are President of the United Sates, and no one knows where you were born.

    You know, now that Obama is channeling Elizabeth Warren, perhaps he is our first 1/32nd Cherokee president. I mean, cheekbones don’t lie.

  16. Slartibartfast says:

    This whole post is racist.

  17. I had to have an ID, return my pocket knife to my vehicle, have my backpack x-rayed, and go through a TSA like metal detector in order to enter an IRS office to pay my taxes this year.

  18. BigBangHunter says:

    – Maybe I should rephrase that GO…

    – You are President of the United States and the SOTUS has ruled that immigrent Cherokee Kenyans do not have to show ID.

  19. George Orwell says:

    Cherokee Kenyans. Well, that’s every bit as real as Elizabeth Warren’s claims.

    Do Cherokee Kenyans run any casinos? Nice racket if you can get it.

  20. palaeomerus says:

    Do you need an ID to purchase medical marijuana ? To rent a moving van? To write and sell a screen play in Los Angeles?

  21. palaeomerus says:

    You didn’t get that ID by yourself. Somebody else did that!

  22. Dale Price says:

    To buy over-the-counter Sudafed-type products in the State of Michigan.

    http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-2941_4871-129470–,00.html

    Note that the law went into effect back when Granholm was governor.

  23. BigBangHunter says:

    – The rest of the top ten reasons of why you peobably would’nt need any photo ID:

    *4 – You’re a member of PETA and your pet goat ate your ID
    *3 – You are related to Eric Holder
    *2 – You live in Chicago

    – and the number one reason:

    *1 – Your name is McGehee and any form of your likeness would be considered a public safety risk.

    *rimshot*

  24. leigh says:

    Be careful, BBH. He has an NFL player doppelganger with a bad temper.

  25. To summarize my previous post, to enter an IRS office, which a lot more people are going to have to do under Obamacare.

    Other places an ID is required:
    To enter any military base
    To enter an airline lounge at an airport
    To enter Mexico
    Apply for a swim pass at the local rec center

  26. BigBangHunter says:

    – Hey now, at least I got him a mention on Letterman. You can’t imagine how tough it is being the publicist for a client that can’t even be seen in public. (someone glance over and see if he’s laughing).

  27. palaeomerus says:

    Do I need an ID to get an Obamaphone?

  28. Enrak says:

    How does this:
    Receive a marriage license

    Not cause spontaneous combustion in gay marriage rights/no voter id people’s heads?

    Voting is a right! I don’t need an ID.

    Marriage is a right! I should only need an ID.

  29. BigBangHunter says:

    “Voting is a right! I don’t need an ID.”

    – No, as a matter of fact it is not a ‘right’, its a privaledge, and one you must earn by meeting a minimum of societal satndards.

    – State/county/city elections:
    * Citizenship/proof of birth/ss number
    * Proof of residence
    * Non-felon (eligibility post-time-served varies by state)

    – Federal elections:
    * Voter registration prior to election cycle (time requirements varies by state)
    * Other – same as above for state etc.

  30. BigBangHunter says:

    – Or if you’re a Progressive you can just run for Prez and then you don’t need no stinking birth certificate.

  31. Enrak says:

    According to my Boy Scout manual voting is both a Right and a Duty.

    :P

  32. cranky-d says:

    I was not aware that the Boy Scout manual was a legal authority.

  33. BigBangHunter says:

    – Yeh, well the Boy scouts also thought there was just one Lassie, so theres that.

  34. Enrak says:

    But I agree, in this country. The founders and ratifiers certainly understood that voting was a privledge as they only established voting for landowners (and white, male ones at that).

    That said, the founders and ratifiers were not Gods but men. We generally point to the bill of rights as a list of our unalienable rights, and they certainly nailed most. But there is no reason to assume that they identified ALL of our, if you will, God-given, rights.

    I’m not sure how I feel about voting. Technically, all of our rights are subject to certain minimum standards (libel, Fire!, non-felon for guns, etc.) I don’t see why voting shouldn’t be a right actually. Being a right doesn’t preclude having to show ID IMO. To get all of our rights the constitution guarantees you have to be a citizen which implies being able to prove it.

    /thinking out loud

  35. Enrak says:

    The Boy Scout manual was ratified in 1938 as the official law of the land.

    Google it!

  36. cranky-d says:

    Voting is not a right.

  37. Enrak says:

    – Yeh, well the Boy scouts also thought there was just one Lassie, so theres that.

    I am not getting this.

  38. Enrak says:

    I was not aware that Cranky-d was a legal authority.

  39. palaeomerus says:

    So, can I get a hooker to sing the opera theme from Carmen as she pees on me while I’m dressed as Aquaman without an ID? I bet not.

    And similarly can I get a permit to drill a well on my land without an ID?

    Can I drive the snakes out of Ireland and humble the stone of Crom Cruach on the Mag Sleact without an ID?

  40. cranky-d says:

    If you look at any amendment addressing voting, they limit the restrictions to voting that are based on race, sex, and age.

    The Bill of Rights was likely a mistake. The people against the Bill of Rights were afraid that instead of being examples of things the government cannot do, they would become the only things the government cannot do. They turned out to be quite prescient.

  41. McGehee says:

    BigBangHunter says July 18, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    They say Jack Bauer can make Chuck Norris cry. They say Dick Cheney can make Jack Bauer cry. They say Attila the Hun once made Dick Cheney pretend to be laughing so no one would know he was crying.

    Attila the Hun’s fatal nosebleed resulted from his seeing a picture of me.

  42. cranky-d says:

    You already agreed that voters, at the time of the ratification of the constitution, did not think voting was a right. What other authority do I need than intentionalism?

  43. McGehee says:

    The weird thing is, I showed him that picture. In person. For some reason seeing me in person doesn’t cause any harm at all.

    Unless you piss me off, in which case I show you my picture.

  44. Enrak says:

    Snark aside – I see your point. I generally like to limit “rights” to negative rights. Voting is sort of a positive “right” were we to call it that.

    In any event – I don’t think it matters to my point. Whether we (here at PW) define it as a right is irrelevant to whether or not someone against voter ID laws would define it as such.

  45. BigBangHunter says:

    – The Lassie reference was taken from some comments that were made down through the years that some used to belittle the whole idea of the boy scouts, which originally grew out of a way to recruit for the military without being too obvious about it.

    – One of the standing jokes was that the Boy Scout leaders were so gulible they believed there was only one Lassie for the entire 55 years the show was on the air.

    – In other words they had no badge for math.

    – No big.

  46. Enrak says:

    You already agreed that voters, at the time of the ratification of the constitution, did not think voting was a right. What other authority do I need than intentionalism?

    I was making the argument that the constitution as ratified technically doesn’t define our “rights” as they are unalienable. They include such things as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And other things mentioned in the Bill of Rights. But as you pointed out, the BOR were examples of things the gov’t can’t do (mostly because they interfere with our God-given rights), not an exhaustive list. So I was just thinking out loud on the concept of voting as a right (God-given), not a right (protected by the U.S. federal gov’t). I think I’m convinced voting isn’t a right for reasons other than the ratifiers of the constitution didn’t think so. I don’t trust those bastards anymore than I trust our current compatriots.

  47. Seth says:

    Sure, call it a right. Or call it a privledge. Doesn’t change the crux of the issue: when foreigners, the deceased, and imaginary prople vote, it disenfranchises every honest American by diluting their vote.

    So I don’t give one grab-darn smother-rucking flippen turd what semantics are used to describe that particular civic act: it was reserved for competent minded, fully vested members of society. Flippin bastards, the lot that would rob us of it. That’s what it is: theft. They’re stealing from me, and you. And everyone.

    They can go to ever-luvin hellfire.

  48. cranky-d says:

    I don’t think it’s irrelevant to claim whether voting is a right or not. It’s key. It is either a right or it is not. If we cede the ground to the assertions of any right that is not a right, we are losing.

    Almost all “positive rights” require the enslavement of others to fulfill them. Voting does not appear to directly have that problem, but indirectly it does.

    Given that, I would not argue showing ID to vote based on whether voting is a right, since I think it’s not central to the point. I would simply argue that requiring an ID to vote is not an undue burden or discriminatory in any way. These days you need an ID for just about everything, including exercising your second amendment rights. I would say that eliminates any problem with exercising rights and requiring IDs to do so, without dealing with any assertion that voting is a right.

  49. cranky-d says:

    I spent a bit of time on my last post, so I did not address your 3:38 entry, which I generally agree with.

  50. Seth says:

    Didn’t say it’s irrelevent, I just said I don’t really care what semantics you use to describe it. The core of the issue is the same either way.

    Voting is self-evidently a right, within the scope and as defined in the Constitution.

  51. cranky-d says:

    I was not addressing you Seth.

  52. cranky-d says:

    Voting is self-evidently a right, within the scope and as defined in the Constitution.

    Okey-dokey.

  53. Squid says:

    Doesn’t change the crux of the issue: when foreigners, the deceased, and imaginary prople vote, it disenfranchises every honest American by diluting their vote.

    This is indeed the crux of the issue, and needs to be at the heart of our pushback against the popular narrative being pushed by the leftist media, namely that we’re trying to keep people from voting because we’re evil and hate the poor.

    The simplest arithmetic shows that every illegal and duplicate vote disenfranchises a legitimate voter, just the same as if that voter had been turned away from the polls. Every time we’re accused of wanting to prevent some protected class from voting, we should hit back with “Why do you want to cancel out all the votes of middle America?”

  54. cranky-d says:

    Every time we’re accused of wanting to prevent some protected class from voting, we should hit back with “Why do you want to cancel out all the votes of middle America?”

    Given how brazen they’ve been lately, they might actually answer truthfully.

  55. Seth says:

    I was not addressing you Seth.

    Nor was I addressing you, so much as the forum in general.

  56. cranky-d says:

    My apologies, Seth.

  57. Seth says:

    No problem. Today I’m just living up to your name.

  58. BigBangHunter says:

    – As fundemental and minimal as the requirements are, and they are universal in our society for any number of normal, legal activities, there is only one possible motive anyone could have to objecting to meeting the voting standards, and the very reason for their existance in the first place. Simply as agitprop bullshit wrapped in the usual Lefturd linquistic gymnastics.

    – They want illigitamate vote because it springs almost entirely from the very sorts of demographics that are busy in other areas of illegal activity, so why should we expect voting to be any different.

    – Plus they get to play both the race and class warefare cards while they’re at it. The perfect Marxist propaganda tool.

  59. BigBangHunter says:

    – Since the days of Woodrow Wilson, and evem before, there has been a smallish, but loud and persistant Anarchist/Progressive movement in our country. There is nothing new about any of this.

    – You can see it in the Union riots in late 1800’s in New York, and in the 10’s out here in San Diego with the IWW freedom of speech mess that lasted almost an entire year before it was finally put down.

    – The Left in the media, the college system, and many organizations, has spent all these years studying the Constitution to find weaknesses and ways to exploit them and you’re seeing the results now.

  60. newrouter says:

    levin – “the obama mob family”

  61. Swen says:

    You need an ID to buy a 40 of Olde English with your EBT card. That should be ruled unfairly prejudicial to the poor, long-suffering welfare queens and moochers.

  62. subconch says:

    For a future date, maybe, beyond voter ID… when rising from the ashes, maybe.
    Bind voters to support the Constitution, requisite to exercising their right/privilege, same as the officers of government whom they empower, and for all who are bound to it, at least prove they’ve read it. Just a layman (or lame, man) idea.

  63. palaeomerus says:

    I bet I need an ID to buy a pistol.

  64. palaeomerus says:

    I bet I need an ID to get an extra helping of salt in my 40 oz. soda when I’m in New York City.

  65. BigBangHunter says:

    – Hell, right now I just want to right the ship of state, get back to being a damn Republic, and dismantle all the fucking ‘ists’, along with the rabid Left media, and exorsize the commie college gaggle..

    – First things first, and that would be a good start.

  66. newrouter says:

    Mark Levin · 353,837 like this
    4 hours ago ·

    I am calling on Obama to release the names of the drug dealers from whom he bought his drugs all those years he was a (self-admitted) dope head.

  67. BigBangHunter says:

    – And just for the record if I was Romney I’d tell Kenyadick and his merry bunch of peckerheads to screw themslves with the Bain thing.

    – All he has to do is keep hitting back against all of Obama’s class and race warefare crap and wait for the next unemployment figures to be released.

    – Every time they are ~O~shit takes another massive slam and drops another point or three in the tracking pools. Three more months of this and it should be a cake walk if Romney doesn’t do anything stupid..

  68. BigBangHunter says:

    – I saw that a little earlier nr, but didn’t have time to read it. So maybe Romney knows more than we give him credit for.

    – Sometimes it pays to keep your powder dry and let the other guy dig his hole. Sometimes less is more.

  69. BigBangHunter says:

    – I posted that one word (Lavine) on Huffinpoop under one of their endless Bain articles.

    – It was like suddenly fliping on the lights in a South Carolina fleabag motel.

    – The cockroaches went berserk.

  70. BigBangHunter says:

    – Oh and Bumbbledick slipped below Romney in several major polls, most probably due to Bernanke telling Schumer to go fuck himself yesterday, and we havn’t even gotten the latest unemployment numbers yet.

    – I notice the tone of many of the true believers is getting a bit ugly for the Wonce.

  71. leigh says:

    The Right To Vote

    The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the “most numerous branch” of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

    Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by “the People,” and who comprises “the People” has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

    My bold.

  72. BigBangHunter says:

    Yes, well in NM where the age of consent is 12, its a bit embarrassing if you have to tell your spouse you’re too young to vote.

  73. leigh says:

    12? Holy moly. One of my grandmothers got married at 15, almost 16, but that was in the Dark Ages.

  74. BigBangHunter says:

    – A few others set the age at 14, but I’m pretty sure they all get around it by simply refusing to issue a marraige license to anyone under 18. Could prove interesting with the new SS laws.

  75. BigBangHunter says:

    – Hey, they still have a law on the books in Ohio that makes it a felony to “not preceed all horse drawn or motor driven vehicals by carrying a latern after sundown.”

    – Talk about out of date legislation. Course the Amish don’t mind.

  76. leigh says:

    My mom and dad got married when she was only 17 but they had to get permission from her parents first.

    I checked into age of consent laws a few months back, but not about marriages. It does seem that around here, at least, the rednecks have families first and then get married. The college bound kids go off to school and seldom come back unless they are taking over a family practice of some kind.

  77. newrouter says:

    here’s some fun

    think progress

    The first time Viviette Applewhite went to the polls, she cast her vote for John F. Kennedy.

    link

    She cast her first vote for PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt. On election day four years ago, Applewhite went across the street to vote. “I was waiting there when they opened the door,” she said. “I didn’t vote for [Barack] Obamabecause he was black. I voted for him because he was a Democrat.”

    link

  78. Pablo says:

    Oh. Jury duty.

  79. Pablo says:

    – You are President of the United Sates, and no one knows where you were born.

    You spelled Preezy of the United Steezy wrong, BBH.

  80. leigh says:

    Jurors are picked from people who have driver’s licenses, thanks to motor-voter. Before that it was registered voters.

    There’s nowhere to hide anymore.

  81. BigBangHunter says:

    – The Golden Unicorn herder is soon going to have yet another milestone (millstone) to hang around his neck. The hits just keep coming.

  82. Pablo says:

    Voting is self-evidently a right, within the scope and as defined in the Constitution.

    Cite, please.

    America needs a big ass civics class. And numerous history lessons.

    Rights are not granted by the Constitution. Not a one. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, of which voting isn’t one.

  83. newrouter says:

    But her circumstances are not at all uncommon. African Americans, especially elderly African Americans, are disproportionately less likely to have a birth certificate.

    hey how about photo id social security cards?

  84. leigh says:

    Sheesh. I go hunt down a non-lawyerly cite on the “right” to vote at my 7:15 for all the good it did. There are declarations of a right to vote on at least three threads right now.

  85. BigBangHunter says:

    – Oh I don’t know Pablo. I kind of liked that pic of the guy in Ohio on the side of the highway exercising his right to vote by giving Obama a double “number 1” sign as his campaign bus rolled by.

  86. BigBangHunter says:

    – As earlier mentioned by others, I don’t care if they call it ballin the jack as long as you have to show pic ID and proof of residence.

    – The left want to olay semantic games so they can challenge having to prove who you are. Screw that. They are such idiots.

  87. EBL says:

    How do you register a species with the AKA?

  88. BigBangHunter says:

    – Its like we’ve raised a couple of generations of over-educated morons.

  89. BigBangHunter says:

    “How do you register a species with the AKA?”

    – You have to come up with a new breed of dog or some such and get AKA approval. Rockefellers Bull Mastiff is one such that I know of.

  90. BigBangHunter says:

    – Species should have been breed.

    – Although you might make a case for a new species called a “Pelosi”. but I’m not sure anyone would want an old wrinkled scorn oozing Botox out her feet.

  91. geoffb says:

    Its like we’ve raised a couple of generations of over-educated morons.

    If they would just have the courage of their convictions and all go follow their dream we could get back to being America while they had their own brand of “fun.”

    The BBC tells the melancholy story of Oh Kil-nam, a South Korean man who, convinced by his Marxist education that North Korea was a worker’s paradise, decided to defect there with his wife and two children in 1986. Oh, who had just completed his PhD in Germany in Marxist economics and who “had been active in left-wing groups” had no reason to doubt the beckoning invitation of North Korean officials who promised him free health care and a government job, like certain other people you may know.

    He chose poorly.

  92. Pablo says:

    From nr’s first link @ 7:56:

    She will be the plaintiff in the voter identification lawsuit being filed by the ACLU and the NAACP in the state, which claims that “the state’s voter photo ID law violates the Pennsylvania Constitution by depriving citizens of their most fundamental constitutional right – the right to vote.”

    *headdesk*

  93. newrouter says:

    a new species called a “Pelosi”

    spotted at romney rally in irwin, pa guy wearing tee shirt: DRUG TEST PELOSI

  94. newrouter says:

    pa constitution

    Qualifications of Electors
    Section 1.
    Every citizen 21 years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact. 1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month. 2. He or she shall have resided in the State ninety (90) days immediately preceding the election. 3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least sixty (60) days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within sixty (60) days preceding the election.

    http://www.duq.edu/law/pa-constitution/constitutions/current.cfm#7

  95. geoffb says:

    Pennsylvania Constitution Section 5.

    Elections
    Section 5

    Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.

    This is the only mention of citizen voting rights. Unless they have truly universal suffrage where everyone can vote from birth on then it would seem that there is some “civil interference” with the “right of suffrage.”

  96. leigh says:

    That’s a great link, geoff. Thanks.

  97. serr8d says:

    C’mon. You know Democrats must has this arc of cheating to win! Why are you trying to deny them their best opportunity to re-elect our legitimate savior, the most benevolent and triumphant I-wOn ?

    WAKE UP AND RE-SMELL THE UNICORNS~! RACISTS!

  98. Caecus Caesar says:

    *Score some airplane dope.

  99. serr8d says:

    So far, Tennessee has kept the photo ID requirement to vote.

    So, Memphis Democrats, STAY IN YOUR GRAVES!

  100. geoffb says:

    And nr at 8:57 shows some of the interferences established.

    I like this part.

    All laws regulating the holding of elections by the citizens, or for the registration of electors, shall be uniform throughout the State, except that laws regulating and requiring the registration of electors may be enacted to apply to cities only, provided that such laws be uniform for cities of the same class,

    Different strokes for different sized cities.

  101. newrouter says:

    wiki

    Local government in Pennsylvania is more complex than in most states in the United States. This often leads to misunderstandings about how localities are referred to throughout the Commonwealth. There are five types of local governments listed in the Pennsylvania Constitution; county, township, borough, city, and school district.[1] All of Pennsylvania is included in one of the state’s 67 counties and each county is then divided into one of the state’s 2,562 municipalities. There are no independent cities or unincorporated territory within Pennsylvania. Local municipalities are either governed by statutes enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature and administered through the Pennsylvania Code, by a home rule charter or optional form of government adopted by the municipality with consent of the Legislature.[2]

    Each municipality, except boroughs, are then classified according to their population. The General Assembly sets the population threshold for each local government unit. There are currently nine classifications for counties, four classes of cities, two classes of townships, and five classes of school districts.

  102. Pablo says:

    There’s more in Article VII:

    Qualifications of Electors
    Section 1.
    Every citizen 21 years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact. 1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month. 2. He or she shall have resided in the State ninety (90) days immediately preceding the election. 3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least sixty (60) days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within sixty (60) days preceding the election.

    The bold is mine and demonstrates that requiring ID is completely within the purview of the legislature.

  103. serr8d says:

    OT. A surprising victory supporting a classic of literature; a common-sense judgement against an overzealous lefty PC ‘tardlet…

    A public hearing, at which she denied all the allegations about the book, saw a judge reject her request for unemployment benefits as well as take on claims about the novel’s contents.

    “When I hear that Huck Finn is racist, my immediate response – having studied literature and having studied that particular piece of literature and theory about it – is, ‘Of course it’s racist,'” said administrative law judge James Timberland, noting that he had a master’s degree in English literature. “Part of the idea was to point out, through that book, that it was racist. It’s about racism.”

  104. leigh says:

    One down, millions to go serr8d.

  105. McGehee says:

    I find the word “slave” to be far more offensive. That may be because I have at least one (temporary) slave in my ancestry but, as far as I know, no one of non-European heritage.

    Even so…

  106. cranky-d says:

    If you’re talking about an indentured servant, I have one of those in my ancestry too.

  107. BigBangHunter says:

    “Local government in Pennsylvania is more complex ….

    – That still doesn’t explain South Philly.

  108. BigBangHunter says:

    – And here I always thought I was the indentured servant in my family.

  109. dicentra says:

    Don’t miss out on #ObamaKidsBooks

    Bob The You Didn’t Builder
    If You Give a Mouse an EBT Card
    One Fish. Two Fish. Those Aren’t Your Fish
    One Fish, Two Fish, Your Fish is My Fish
    Fast & Furious George
    Elizabeth Warren In The Cupboard
    Oh, The Debt You’ll Owe!
    Green Eggs and Dog
    My Little Crony
    Solynderella
    The Little Engine That Couldn’t Without Federal Assistance.

  110. cranky-d says:

    Those were great, di. I like these two the best:

    Oh, The Debt You’ll Owe!
    The Little Engine That Couldn’t Without Federal Assistance.

  111. BigBangHunter says:

    – The Won der ears
    – Tax-me Elmo
    – Thomas in the tank engine

  112. bh says:

    This is a bit like patent and copyright.

    There’s a difference between a civic right and a natural right. A nice short-hand involves that which can’t be restricted because you’d be more than willing to kill in your natural state.

    Natural rights involve things that you don’t ever make laws against because of the complete failure that would result if you tried. People die in the street when you deny natural rights in the same way that people die when you deny them access to their house or threaten their person or their family.

    Civic or civil rights are a different thing entirely.

    Cranky had it right immediately, IMHO, and all that self-effacing stuff.

    ” I think I’m convinced voting isn’t a right for reasons other than the ratifiers of the constitution didn’t think so. I don’t trust those bastards anymore than I trust our current compatriots.”

    See, that’s a flag for me. You keep giving them, enrak.

  113. bh says:

    By the way, this is where I think it’s impossible to go wrong with Hobbes.

    Hobbes knows natural right. It’s not about anything more than he lays out.

    It’s something you’ll kill for as a beast would or it’s a thing agreed to by men, possibly lawyers.

  114. BigBangHunter says:

    – How about its a thing you would kill a lawyer for.

    – Naw, that includes almost anything.

  115. bh says:

    For a crib-note, this is what sdferr means when he says natural rights either exist or they don’t. This is what I mean when I speak of it. If they exist they will emerge. When Machiavelli cautions the prince from acting the fool he’s asking the prince to not tempt that which we claim as a birthright.

    Either men will become completely insulted and do violence to those doing violence to them and theirs or they won’t.

    It really isn’t a theoretical matter.

  116. bh says:

    Civil rights are a different thing entirely. Patent law. Drinking ages. Voting rights for felons.

    Agreements between men that aren’t based on the fundamental assumption of violent disagreement. These are civil rights.

  117. motionview says:

    Could y’all drop by and retweet any of these #OffTheCliff tweets that appeal? https://twitter.com/motionview Thanks.

  118. BigBangHunter says:

    – I don’t tweet mv, but I dropped by.

  119. bh says:

    Something that bothers me is how we realize the worth of intentionalism but then ignore what our Founders were drawing upon.

    Natural rights weren’t first discussed in our founding and our American geniuses weren’t abashed about their origins. Yet, the moment we move to Locke and Hobbes, the discussion ends.

    They come before Prager. They come before Beck. Yet, we ignore them. It bothers me.

  120. motionview says:

    Thanks BBH & bh. I may have found my calling – a write-only media where I can spew political mockery, and any misspelling and intellectual low-browedness can be blamed on the 140 character limit. Now how do I explain low-browedness?

  121. BigBangHunter says:

    “Now how do I explain low-browedness?”

    – I usually go with prudish audiance for that one.

  122. palaeomerus says:

    “” I think I’m convinced voting isn’t a right for reasons other than the ratifiers of the constitution didn’t think so. I don’t trust those bastards anymore than I trust our current compatriots.”

    See, that’s a flag for me. You keep giving them, enrak.

    +++

    Hmm.

    To be fair the founders expressed considerable distrust of one another and the bill of rights was drafted as a means of convincing some of the more reluctant ex-colonies to take part in the new government. Some signed the constitution but expressed regrets and doubts about it. Early on some disagreed about what it allowed and did not allow. The early days of the republic under the constitution were not so sanguine and relaxed. Political abuses and strange exercises of ambition were not unheard of. And they met each other with rather fierce political opposition over the controversial matters of their day. Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts (to piss off the French mostly, who were backing the Democratic Republicans ) and then with the help of Congress appointed a lot of new Federalist appellate judges just before Jefferson was inaugurated. As soon as Jefferson was in he tried to have the judges tired and expelled for treason and used the once hated Alien and Sedition Acts against the Federalists and their British supporters. When the treason thing was a no go the Democratic Republicans decided to create a new Judicial act that simply abolished the new appellate court positions.

    They were trying to fuck each other over by the second president. The third president returned the favor.

    What the flounders produced was not a perfect static structure but a rather ugly adversarial one where the Brit-buddies and French Friends tried to shape things to their liking and put it back as soon as they were back in power.

    John Marshall, appointed Chief Justice by Adams, gave the Supreme court most of its co-equality with the executive and congress simply by asserting that it was so.

    The Constitution was a brilliant document but it was under assault from very early by the men sword to defend it and it as formed as a compromise that left no one really satisfied but no one disgusted enough to walk away.

  123. BigBangHunter says:

    “[left] no one really satisfied but no one disgusted enough to walk away.”

    – Which, given the polarized atmosphere, and frontier justice of the time, is probably the best that could be hoped for, all things considered.

  124. palaeomerus says:

    Sure, but that’s not quite how Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity like to tell the story. He makes it sound like the thing flew out of everyone’s head and started a happy golden age where everyone looked out for one another and pulled their own weight and it was because these genius super philosophers got together and hammered out a perfect document that has since come under assault by depraved elements. It came under assault painfully early and there were people with blood in their eyes on both sides of the thing.

    Likewise the left just wants to bitch about rich white slave owners who raped people and had people whipped to death to test out a new whip or something. That’s ALSO bullshit.

    The founders weren’t angels or demons. They were a bunch local politicians, newspaper publishers, land owners, renters, farmers, lawyers, etc. They came up with something great and useful. But they were not elevated demigods who forged a fabled macguffin in a state of serene wisdom according to a singular design dictated to them by human nature. They were smacking each other around the whole time before and after they signed the thing. Once Washington was gone they took the gloves off.

    We are LUCKY that the constitution survived long enough to still be revered by some in the 21st century. Now we have a super executive, a whimsical judiciary, and a split congress that just got through with being a wild leftist joy ride for which they have been punished. We have a directly elected Senate, and lots of odd ways to get around the amendments that probably aren’t legal but nobody is stopping it.

  125. Enrak says:

    ” I think I’m convinced voting isn’t a right for reasons other than the ratifiers of the constitution didn’t think so. I don’t trust those bastards anymore than I trust our current compatriots.”

    See, that’s a flag for me. You keep giving them, enrak.

    Ask me how much I care. I’m a moby/troll. Big whoop.

    You once again missed the intent of my post. Or if you caught it you have shown no signs of having done so.

    When I wrote “Voting is a right! I don’t need an ID” I was fairly obviously writing as the role of leftist with what I consider to be conflicting thoughts. Not as Enrak saying “Voting is a right!”.

    The rest was just me thinking out loud about a topic that wasn’t really germane to the thrust of my post.

    And you want to do some hagiography of the people that voted for the constitution as somehow the only guarantors of your liberty you go right ahead. I may have overstated it when I said I trust them as much as our current compatriots since they obviously had a better idea of true liberty than the average American of today, but that doesn’t mean I have to view them as somehow perfect.

  126. Enrak says:

    Enrak’s post muses on voting being a right:

    cranky-d says July 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm
    Voting is not a right.

    Seth posts: “Voting is self-evidently a right, within the scope and as defined in the Constitution.”

    cranky-d says July 18, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Okey-dokey.

  127. Enrak says:

    This:

    The founders weren’t angels or demons. They were a bunch local politicians, newspaper publishers, land owners, renters, farmers, lawyers, etc. They came up with something great and useful. But they were not elevated demigods who forged a fabled macguffin in a state of serene wisdom according to a singular design dictated to them by human nature. They were smacking each other around the whole time before and after they signed the thing. Once Washington was gone they took the gloves off.

    Is all I was trying to say, much less elegantly. Except I was extending it to the RATIFIERS.

    SOUND REVEILLE!

  128. Enrak says:

    bh says July 18, 2012 at 10:13 pm
    By the way, this is where I think it’s impossible to go wrong with Hobbes.

    Hobbes knows natural right. It’s not about anything more than he lays out.

    It’s something you’ll kill for as a beast would or it’s a thing agreed to by men, possibly lawyers.

    My musing post was merely musing whether or not voting was a “natural right”. I’m not sure how you can be so offended that I wouldn’t put all my faith in the Constitution of the United States (created by men, ratified by men) as the be-all, end-all source of my natural rights. Nor in those that ratified it as the deciders of what are my natural rights.

    You can see maybe why MY “troll-scarred” flag is at half mast Mr. bh. You aren’t the only one that can “raise flags”. :P

    Lastly, though I’m still convinced voting is not a “natural right”, I’m pretty sure people have and will kill for the ability to vote. YMMV.

  129. Enrak says:

    I’ve stunned you all into shameful silence, haven’t I?

  130. Enrak says:

    …with my logic and wit, I mean…

  131. Enrak says:

    …and maybe a certain recognition on your part that you have once again assumed facts not in evidence…

  132. Enrak says:

    …or…I guess…CST/PST…

  133. B Moe says:

    Killing is voting.

  134. Dale Price says:

    Ah, somebody already had Sudafed. That’ll teach me to skim.

    You increasingly need to flash ID to get into privately-owned buildings open to the public. I had to in Chicago.

  135. Enrak says:

    What I wrote:

    Enrak says July 18, 2012 at 2:59 pm
    How does this:
    Receive a marriage license

    Not cause spontaneous combustion in gay marriage rights/no voter id people’s heads?

    Voting is a right! I don’t need an ID.

    Marriage is a right! I should only need an ID.

    What some of you read:

    Enrak says July 18, 2012 at 2:59 pm
    Voting is a right! I don’t need an ID.

    My original post really wasn’t very controversial. Wrong, maybe. Hard to tell since none of you actually challenged what I wrote.

  136. McGehee says:

    Hobbes knows natural right. It’s not about anything more than he lays out.

    It’s something you’ll kill for as a beast would

    And when you have people saying they won’t vote if it becomes a little more complicated, that tells you something right there.

    If voting were so important to them — and remember, these are people who depend on politicians to pay their mortgages and buy their gas — they’d be willing to crawl across broken glass to cast their ballots.

    But ask them to show a document nearly all of them already have for other purposes? They’ll stay home hiding in their closets because it means the Big Bad Republicans are after them.

    Bah.

  137. Enrak says:

    McGeehee – These are the same people that believe that every human life has incalculable and infinite worth, but smoke lots and lots of marijuana, and/or drink lots and lots of alcohol.

    People make choices every day that indicate that even their own life (never mind other people’s) has a finite worth suggesting that cost benefit analysis applies to even issues of health and healthcare. But try arguing that to someone with a metaphorical “FOR THE CHILDREN!” tattoo on their forehead.

  138. Enrak says:

    With apologies for misspelling your name.

  139. GMan says:

    Enrak,

    You should have put some quotes in there maybe:

    “Voting is a right! I don’t need an ID.”

    “Marriage is a right! I should only need an ID.”

    Might’ve made it more clear.

  140. bh says:

    Thanks for telling me what you think I read but I blockquoted exactly what I found odd, enrak.

    Conservatives don’t often end their points by saying they don’t trust those founding bastards.

    Just as they most often don’t take threads about Obama’s failed record on jobs and start talking about how terrible Bush was on jobs.

    Maybe you’re just that odd duck who does such things. I’ll grant you that possibility.

  141. Pablo says:

    They’ll stay home hiding in their closets because it means the Big Bad Republicans are after them.

    Being asked to show ID is very scary, what I hear.

  142. cranky-d says:

    With respect to my “Okey dokey” comment, let me explain sarcasm to you, Enrak.

  143. Enrak says:

    Probably true Gman.

    Thanks for telling me what you think I read but I blockquoted exactly what I found odd, enrak.

    Wasn’t talking about you with that comment.

    Conservatives don’t often end their points by saying they don’t trust those founding bastards.

    When did I claim to be a conservative? Is it a crime to have a different viewpoint than the predominant thought here? Last time I checked our propietor encouraged those with dissenting viewpoints to post ici.

    Just as they most often don’t take threads about Obama’s failed record on jobs and start talking about how terrible Bush was on jobs.

    I’ve explained this a million times. I was just as surprised as anyone that that metric didn’t show Obama in a more negative light than Bush. But I certainly don’t expect any regular at this site to be a Bush apologist. And I’m certainly not going to let preconcieved notions get in the way of facts. The data is the data. I try to learn from it rather than dictate to it. I certainly never started talking about how terrible Bush was on jobs. I posted my metric, expressed earnest surprise and then discussed with the people here that AREN’T on the lookout for trolls and mobys and leftists and fiendish flouridators.

    Look, if you are so convinced I’m an elaborate troll/moby why don’t you just wait for the definitive proof, rather than the insinuations and “flags”. THEN you can turn to everyone here and say “SEE! SEE?!? I was right!” A round of applause will ensue. Then streamers, then fireworks. Then you get to kiss the random girl on the street. It’ll be magical!

    I’m beginning to get a new appreciation for cranky-d. He doesn’t seem to think I’m a troll at least. Merely an idiot.

    cranky-d (artist’s conception):

    :(

    P.S. I really have been reading here for a long time, and I had and continue to have a great deal of respect for all y’all. Including you bh. Seeing people lament that not enough people have read their philosopher’s PRIOR to Hobbes and Locke is a rare find on this here internets! Good stuff.

    P.P.S. I can hardly wait til 5 years from now when I can post my real feelings in Rauhauserian fashion. It’ll be delish!

  144. Enrak says:

    cranky-d says July 19, 2012 at 8:56 am
    With respect to my “Okey dokey” comment, let me explain sarcasm to you, Enrak.

    Sure cranky-d. Sarcasm. Nice try, but I wasn’t born yesterday. Next thing you’ll be telling me that Obama was being sarcastic. Of COURSE you built that!

  145. Slartibartfast says:

    I’ve stunned you all into shameful silence, haven’t I?

    I think what was stunning is that it was 5 in the fucking AM.

  146. Enrak says:

    For your review:

    Enrak says July 18, 2012 at 2:59 pm
    How does this:
    Receive a marriage license

    Not cause spontaneous combustion in gay marriage rights/no voter id people’s heads?

    Voting is a right! I don’t need an ID.

    Marriage is a right! I should only need an ID.

    cranky-d says July 19, 2012 at 8:56 am
    With respect to my “Okey dokey” comment, let me explain sarcasm to you, Enrak.

  147. cranky-d says:

    I promised to leave you alone, Enrak.

  148. Enrak says:

    Slartibartfast says July 19, 2012 at 9:04 am
    I’ve stunned you all into shameful silence, haven’t I?

    I think what was stunning is that it was 5 in the fucking AM.

    I may have covered that if you read a little farther down.

    cranky-d says July 19, 2012 at 8:56 am
    With respect to my “Okey dokey” comment, let me explain irony to you, Enrak.

  149. Enrak says:

    Jeff, one more thing to add to your list:

    *Commenting on ProteinWisdom without being considered a TrollMoby.

  150. Enrak says:

    cranky-d says July 19, 2012 at 9:05 am
    I promised to leave you alone, Enrak.

    And you didn’t deliver! But I never asked for quarter.

    Have at thee!

  151. Slartibartfast says:

    I tend to take people one comment at a time, Enrak. For that reason, I counsel not spreading your meaning out over multiple posts as our friend happyfeet does. Except with him there’s side discussions of cupcakes and whores, which makes him a less pleasant fellow to chat with.

    In short: I’m not making a serious criticism of you at this time.

  152. Enrak says:

    Oh, and another thing Mr. bh:

    Conservatives don’t often end their points by saying they don’t trust those founding bastards.

    I said I don’t trust the “RATIFIERS” any more than my current compatriots. I then backpeddled slightly. But the thrust of that post was that rights just are. They aren’t granted by the U.S. Constitution (they are supposed to be protected by it). Therefore we can’t look to the Constitution as the single source of truth for what our rights are. Therefore we can’t assume that since the Constitution doesn’t consider voting a right, voting is therefore NOT a right.

    Voting either is a right or it isn’t, but the Constitution doesn’t make it so or not so.

    I think I have identified the problem. Unlike y’all I don’t actually already KNOW everything already. So when I muse, or post a comment without a full-on “THIS IS HOW IT IS” point, y’all assume that I am doing that anyways. And that I’m a troll. But that kind of goes without saying, doesn’t it?

  153. bh says:

    It’s remarkable how long you’re able to carry on after rather mild comments on my part.

  154. Enrak says:

    Slartibartfast says July 19, 2012 at 9:14 am
    I tend to take people one comment at a time, Enrak. For that reason, I counsel not spreading your meaning out over multiple posts as our friend happyfeet does. Except with him there’s side discussions of cupcakes and whores, which makes him a less pleasant fellow to chat with.

    In short: I’m not making a serious criticism of you at this time.

    Point taken Slatibartfast. I was just having fun knowing that I was the only person up and commenting at that time.

    I’m obviously bored today. I think I’m turning into that troll that everyone here is always insinuating that I am.

  155. McGehee says:

    Enrak, the thing is, the humility of not knowing everything, rarely comes with the defensiveness you’ve shown in this and previous threads. I think that may be the red flag that people are sensing.

    I once knew someone whose idea of “constructive criticism” was to be insulting and demeaning. I’d hate to think how I would have turned out if I hadn’t realized that his opinion was exactly that, and not gospel. I may be seeing it here.

  156. leigh says:

    I’m thinking Enrak is happyfeet in a new incarnation.

  157. Enrak says:

    Sorry bh. I really am bored today. And in a sparring kind of mood I guess.

  158. sdferr says:

    The founders and ratifiers certainly understood that voting was a privilege as they only established voting for landowners (and white, male ones at that).

    I don’t think this is precisely true. The definition of the franchise was left to the States — the States individually held varying standards. For instance, at the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, N.J. had women’s suffrage (this was so until some years later changed to deny women the vote in N.J. ). So.

  159. Enrak says:

    McGehee says July 19, 2012 at 9:27 am
    Enrak, the thing is, the humility of not knowing everything, rarely comes with the defensiveness you’ve shown in this and previous threads. I think that may be the red flag that people are sensing.

    I once knew someone whose idea of “constructive criticism” was to be insulting and demeaning. I’d hate to think how I would have turned out if I hadn’t realized that his opinion was exactly that, and not gospel. I may be seeing it here.

    I’m defensive about being called a troll, and I react to cranky’s condescending posts (but not to his well-written ones). But my actual comments in this thread and other threads shows me to actually be listening to what the other commenters say. I am convinced by logical arguments, including the one on whether or not voting is a right. (note that it is actually cranky that helps me think this through, just because I tweak him (or try to) doesn’t mean that I don’t take him seriously).

    I’m not sure where you think I’m being insulting or demeaning. I gave bh and cranky some nose-tweaking, but they set the tone not me.

    And recall, that my first post was rather innocuous. Cranky came down on me. Not vice versa. Bh came down on me as well. I just react. Cause it is fun. Not cause I’m mean.

    And other than writing Mr.bh, I don’t find myself reminiscent of happyfeet at all. I mean, I do use punctuation and such. And I rarely call Sarah Palin a whore-tramp-trollop-slut. Rarely.

  160. cranky-d says:

    I promised to leave you alone, Enrak.

    And you didn’t deliver! But I never asked for quarter.

    Have at thee!

    On this I plead guilty. In fact, I had forgotten who you were. I saw “Enrak” and it had a slight familiarity to me, but I did not recall why. I know my memory is fading as I get older. If I had recalled who you were, I would not have engaged you at all, per my promise.

    I shall endeavor to remember who you are in the future so I can keep my promise. If I forget again, I request that you gently remind me of it.

  161. Enrak says:

    I did not know that sdferr.

    So much for my degree in American History. I better go read “A People’s History of the U.S” again.

  162. Enrak says:

    I promised to leave you alone, Enrak.

    And you didn’t deliver! But I never asked for quarter.

    Have at thee!

    On this I plead guilty. In fact, I had forgotten who you were. I saw “Enrak” and it had a slight familiarity to me, but I did not recall why. I know my memory is fading as I get older. If I had recalled who you were, I would not have engaged you at all, per my promise.

    I shall endeavor to remember who you are in the future so I can keep my promise. If I forget again, I request that you gently remind me of it.

    See McGehee? Now THAT is how you do demeaning and insulting.

    Well played cranky-d. I once again surrender to the master. (NOTE: This is NOT a declaration of victory. Just to be clear.)

  163. sdferr says:

    Enrak, it seemed to me bh was urging us to engage with Hobbes and Locke (because they’re important in the development of the ideas the founders and framers held), rather than focus our efforts on engaging with bh or cranky-d as such, or alternatively to focus our efforts on ourselves as caricatured this way or that, frittering away at frivolities. If my judgment of bh’s notion is correct (better understanding of Hobbes and Locke, among others, is very important!) I for one stand in his corner. This, for the simple reason that we don’t know everything, and worse, don’t know the most important things. This latter condition may even have played a great role in our arrival at this dire political pass.

  164. cranky-d says:

    I was not being insulting at all. I did forget who you were, and I am not pleased with myself that I failed to keep my promise, since I rarely give my word about such things.

    I don’t appreciate that you have apparently called me a liar, but I will not further the dispute. I simply wanted to correct your interpretation for anyone else reading the thread.

  165. BigBangHunter says:

    – Enrak, when you tire of arguing with yourself get back to me.

    – And thats the best advice ypu’ll get all month.

  166. Enrak says:

    Whoa cranky! I’m NOT calling you a liar.

    I did misinterpret your post. And I DO apologize.

    No pistols at dawn, please. I’m not even an INTERNET tough guy.

    (I did believe you forgot who I was. Which I thought was just icing on the cake of the whole “you aren’t worth my time” interpretation that I mistakenly gleaned.)

  167. Enrak says:

    BBH – I don’t get what you are trying to say. I’m arguing with myself? About what?

    If I’ve lost BBH, I’ve lost America.

    I can see that we have moved beyond fun and games. Alas. I think I was the only one that found myself funny. I do apologize for wasting everyone’s time on frivolities.

    So…um…how ’bout dem Rockies?

  168. Enrak says:

    sdferr – I agree with you completely. I thought I was agreeing with bh on that as well in my original P.S. But as you can plainly see, my ability to convey not just tone, but meaning, is poor with these limited tools available.

    And by “these limited tools available” I’m referring to my cerebra.

  169. sdferr says:

    Shouldn’t we, with Rousseau, say:

    “I enter upon my task without proving the importance of the subject. I shall be asked if I am a prince or a legislator, to write on politics. I answer that I am neither, and that is why I do so. If I were a prince or a legislator, I should not waste time in saying what wants doing; I should do it, or hold my peace.

    As I was born a citizen of a free State, and a member of the Sovereign, I feel that, however feeble the influence my voice can have on public affairs, the right of voting on them makes it my duty to study them: and I am happy, when I reflect upon governments, to find my inquiries always furnish me with new reasons for loving that of my own country.”

    I mean, what makes him special in a democratic age?

  170. Enrak says:

    the right of voting on them

    Oh, he did NOT just go there!

  171. McGehee says:

    I’m not sure where you think I’m being insulting or demeaning.

    I didn’t say you were. I don’t think anyone here has been. But I’ve seen how being treated that way can make people defensive when they don’t need to be.

  172. BigBangHunter says:

    PW commarate’: You’re being defensive, uneccessarily so.
    Enrak: NO I’M NOT DAMN IT!!!
    PW commarate’: Yes you are.
    Enrak: NO I’M NOT DAMN IT!!!
    ….rinse and repeat….

    – Here’s what I’m going to do…..

    – The Rockies suck, but the Padres suck even more, so much so that we’re down to simple little immoral victories such as the other night, to wit:

    – Padres with runners on 2nd and 3rd, top of the 9th, two outs, Dodgers leading 5 to 4.

    – The Dodgers catcher turns his back to home plate while play is still “on” without calling time out.

    – Runner on third breaks for home. Pitcher yells at catcher who turns around, and then the pitcher throws a fast ball over the catchers head clear back to the backstop.

    – Umpire calls runner from third out, even though the catcher doesn’t even know where the fucking ball is, then after a few beats while the catcher chases the ball, he calls him safe.

    – The other base runner comes home before the catcher can throw the ball to the pitcher who is STILL standing halfway between the mound and home plate.

    – Dodgers lose 6 to 5. Basically a massive cluster fuck, and oooohhh so sweeeeet ™.

  173. cranky-d says:

    A win is a win, BBH. With the Padres, you take what you can get.

  174. Enrak says:

    PW commarate’: You’re being defensive, uneccessarily so.
    Enrak: NO I’M NOT DAMN IT!!!
    PW commarate’: Yes you are.
    Enrak: NO I’M NOT DAMN IT!!!
    ….rinse and repeat….

    …wow…

  175. Squid says:

    A bit of friendly advice, Enrak: look up the First Rule of Holes.

  176. Squid says:

    For what it’s worth, Enrak, I think you got a raw deal in this thread. I got the sarcasm in your opening post and thought it was pretty good. You’re new around here, and most of us don’t yet know how to read your tone, so you’re going to have to survive some growing pains as you come out from lurking.

    Let this thread be water under the bridge. Keep debating in good faith in future threads, and let us figure out how to read your words with the right tone. And if I may offer another bit of friendly advice: type slower. Read and think and edit before hitting the “Post Comment” button, and try to make sure that you’re getting your point across clearly. Accept that you and Cranky got off on the wrong foot, and give him some space to make up his mind about whether he wants to reconsider.

    I’ve done my best to engage your arguments, and tried to stay out of the personal back-and-forth. If my reactions come across as impatience, it’s largely because your opening forays have had a real whiff of “voyage of self-discovery” to them, and my late-night sessions with stoned philosophy majors are many, many years behind me now.

    Fair winds.

  177. Enrak says:

    Thanks Squid, much appreciated. Good to know you got my back. I was feeling a little alone on this thread.

  178. Silver Whistle says:

    Read and think and edit before hitting the “Post Comment” button, and try to make sure that you’re getting your point across clearly.

    Now you tell me.

  179. Enrak says:

    “voyage of self-discovery” heh. I like to think I have an open mind and I am trying to learn, but I am not a stoned philosophy major.

    And I didn’t mean to imply that you are taking sides with my post above. It’s just nice to see someone that isn’t automatically assuming I’m a troll, or defensive, or…

    I definitely accept that cranky and I got off on the wrong foot. He’s really smart, but one of those personality types I can’t help trying to get angry. Some collateral damage ensues. Mostly to my own reputation. :)

    I will definitely try and review my posts before hitting “Post Comment”. I find that most of the time when I do that I never actually hit the button. Which is prob for the best. I really have no interest in turning these threads into flame wars.

    I actually was trying to look up a post by Arthur Silber (“Light of Reason” blog – living by permission or some such) that had a rather enormous list of regulations that dovetailed pretty nicely with Jeff’s original post. I couldn’t find it, but even if I did I kinda already kilt the thread. Maybe geoffb?

  180. PlainBill says:

    You’ll need PhotoID on Amtrack to:

    Obtaining, exchanging or refunding tickets
    Storing baggage at stations
    Checking baggage
    Sending Amtrak Express shipments
    Onboard trains, in response to a request by an Amtrak employee

    http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1241267382692&pagename=am%2FLayout

  181. motionview says:

    You’re going to have to show ID if you want a “free” abortion, according to Planned Parenthood.

  182. PlainBill says:

    You need PhotoID to take the ACT exams:
    http://www.actstudent.org/faq/id.html

    Also for the SAT exams:
    http://sat.collegeboard.org/register/id-requirements

    And to get on a Greyhound bus out of town:
    http://www.greyhound.com/en/help/purchase.aspx

  183. leigh says:

    You need TWO photo IDs to take the GRE, GMAT, LSAT.

  184. BigBangHunter says:

    “If I’ve lost BBH, I’ve lost America.”

    – “A real live cousin of my Uncle Ssm, born on thr forth of July”

  185. guinspen says:

    As for me, “I’ve got a Yankee doodle sweetheart.”

  186. […] Check out this comprehensive illustration of “unfairly prejudicial to the poor” ID requirements: IDs, egos, superegos *perspective […]

  187. BT says:

    This photo showed up on facebook today. I guess it was part of a campaign showing the injustice of demanding photo id in order to vote. Problem is that the ID the gentleman is showing is a valid federally issued photo id and would be allowed for identification purposes at the polls.

Comments are closed.