(June 26, 2013 at 7:06 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You have something against cocksuckers? Some of my best friends are cocksuckers.

Let's not turn something to be celebrated and turn it into something vile.

This.

But I still say being a Kochsucker, or a sucker for the Koch agenda, is a bad thing.

(June 26, 2013 at 6:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I prefer the term 'cocksuckers.'

Doesn't really do it justice, though. We need a term that expresses the desire to hold to dogmatic positions no matter how impractical or unpopular they are.

How about "knob-gobblers?"

Too British.

Meanwhile, never fear. They'll be back for another bite at the apple because the party of "small government" and "individual rights" can't seem to keep its hands out of some poor woman's vagina.

"Assholes" fits for me.

(June 26, 2013 at 7:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Too British.

But won't that just piss them off even more?

I expect the bill to pass before the end of this summer.

Expect to or want to?

More on expect to since Rick Perry stated he would hold a special session for it and the only reason it did not pass was due to a filibuster, which won't be the issue with a Rick's move.

But I'm more concerned with Texas thinking it's going to get away with it's Voter ID law, which will be repealed by Congress during the next session.

Actually both will likely be struck down for unConstitutionality....who knows maybe their abortion law will make it to the Supreme Court because of the inability of Texans to simply drop a matter when they are losing....the passing of this law may be in the benefit of Pro-Choice in the end...only time will tell.

(June 26, 2013 at 10:13 pm)Polaris Wrote: But I'm more concerned with Texas thinking it's going to get away with it's Voter ID law, which will be repealed by Congress during the next session.

Actually both will likely be struck down for unConstitutionality....

Actually, I'm not really clear about why this is so controversial. Granted I'm probably missing something so hopefully someone can help clear this up for me.

This whole thing stems back to when a lot of southern states tried to prevent minorities from voting, correct? So the federal government ruled that certain states, and only certain states, that had a history of doing this couldn't enact any laws seen to try and do such a thing.

So while other states such as Wisconsin and Illinois states that you must show state issued identification in order to vote (which they do), other states like Texas and Mississippi can not. Right? Am I understanding this correctly?

Why don't you just go over to the DMV and grab an Indentification card? I don't see how it's ok for some states, in 2013, to say you have to have ID but it's not ok for other states to do the exact same thing.

And how is it unconstitutional? It's consititutional for the state of Illinois to have this requirement but it's unconstitutional for the state of Texas to have this requirement?

Someone help me out here. What'd I miss? Fuck I hate politics.

(June 27, 2013 at 8:46 am)Rahul Wrote: Why don't you just go over to the DMV and grab an Indentification card? I don't see how it's ok for some states, in 2013, to say you have to have ID but it's not ok for other states to do the exact same thing.

Because the voter ID laws were not accompanied by an easy method for poor people to get an ID. My understanding is that such a procedure, getting an ID, is possible but a hassle.

And of course, hassle is the way the game is played. You don't make it impossible to vote but if you make is just difficult enough, maybe enough to discourage even a few percentage points of voters away from the polls, that could make all the difference in an election.