Bigotry and IDs

Whenever a person's ID is asked for it means that a person's integrity is being questioned. Obviously this is an expression of some sort of prejudice that should no longer be tolerated in modern secular society.

It became clear when Obama's natural born citizenship was doubted and proof was asked. Obviously this is racist. Who are we to doubt? It just shows how racist we are.

To make matters worse there are some advocating voter ID laws where a person would have to show proof of eligibility to vote. Is it any wonder why such bigotry is being eliminated.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... 08612.html

How insulting. Can you imagine in this day and age questioning a person's sincerity in their desire to vote regardless of how many times in one day? It is simply an attack on either race, gender, age, or something I can't think of right now but the prejudice ends in "ism" regardless.

It is time to eliminate IDs as offensive bigotry. For example, why should a kid have to prove themselves old enough to buy beer? We now know this is insulting. Who are we to doubt the youth's sincerity as they buy a six pack? Can you imagine some youth entering a club and his eyes rest on a cute blonde. How insulting is it that he be doubted and asked for proof. No points scored there. Is anyone still bigoted enough to believe the youth would lie? Of course not. We see how prejudiced these attitudes are and what can be gained through trust as we gradually build the coming utopia.

It is time to move beyond bigotry. No longer will we question qualifications for anything much less the presidency. No longer will we question a voter's eligibility to vote, if a person has a driver's license, or anything else that questions their sincerity and eligibility.

We will build a nation on love and trust. It will be glorious.

Nick said:
"Who are we to doubt the youth's sincerity as they buy a six pack? Can you imagine some youth entering a club and his eyes rest on a cute blonde. How insulting is it that he be doubted and asked for proof. No points scored there. Is anyone still bigoted enough to believe the youth would lie? Of course not."

Really? This is a major problem, atleast here in New Zealand. Under age drinking causes many many problems in the hospitality industry of course a kid is gonna lie to purchase alcohol or to get into a 18+ club. Imagine the alcohol related problems we would encounter if ID wasn't required in order to purchase it. I use to work at a night club in my younger days and this was one of major problems we encountered, espeacially before photo ID was introduced.

Hmm perhaps your are bating? If I recall correctly I read a prior post where I seem to remember that you felt Obama should be obliged to prove his citizenship, yes? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards TC

[Scott]

As long as the ID requirements are made without regard to race, ethnicity, religion, gender and so forth I do not see how it could be considered bigotry. It seems obvious to me that there is no inherent bigotry to such a thing. Almost anything could be bigotry in certain circumstances. For instance, if a restaurant only carded 25-year-old-looking non-white people but let white people who look 25 drink uncarded, that would be obvious racism.

In another topic, Nick_A and I pretty much agreed on the whole presidential ID requirements thing so I won't get much into that. What I will say is that I do not see how it could be considered bigotry to require all presidential candidates to provide some sort of certain documentation in a certain way of eligibility, namely of having been born in the USA. Of course, there is no doubt to the fact that a good portion of Obama-opponents are racist and have racist motivations for almost any issue they have with Obama and probably go at the issue in a racist way since they are racists. (For instance, consider that most Mississippi Republicans oppose interracial marriage so much that they want it to be legally banned. I don't to detract from the topic, but I think that shows that a large portion of people are racist regardless of how they feel about ID requirements and thus it would be expected that they would support racist ID-requirement inequalities, particularly if it is a mainly republican proposal or talking-point in question.) Nonetheless, to brush off all people who support a certain ID requirement as racist is a hasty generalization fallacy and to brush off the ID issue itself by the (IMO false) belief that all of its supports are racist is clearly an ad hominem fallacy.

I wonder if the topic "Blind Justice" was ever introduced on this forum? I wonder if it is even considered relevant to discuss in these time of the sanctioned partiality of political correctness and hate crimes.

I admit that I was exaggerating in my OP as to the desirability of eliminating IDs, but I simply cannot understand why, if the equality of blind justice is honored at all, that so many express righteous indignation over voter IDs necessary to cut down on voter fraud.

At one time people admitted that an ID served a useful purpose. To show proof of eligibility to vote was considered something worthy of pride. If blind justice has any value then it is obvious that proof of eligibility is desirable in support of the system and a check on corruption.

But apparently progressive education has taught us that the only important consideration is the motive for asking for proof of eligibility. The impartiality of blind justice is being sacrificed to political correctness.

I don't know which is worse; the fact that educated people stress motive so much or those that accept it at the expense of blind justice where the motive for asking is unimportant in relation to the importance of supporting the system through IDs.

Poor Lady Justice. She meant well but was overmatched and beaten down by political correctness. Well at least I'll honor you and toast your death by saying "our loss."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice

Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.

[Scott]

Excuse my ignorance, but I'm unaware of the referenced voter ID issue. Please inform.

Whenever I have voted, I was required to show my driver's license (or state ID) at the voting place on election day and then my name was crossed off the list of eligible voter's. If memory serves but I'm not sure on this, I was also required to show some certain evidence of my address as well since my driver's license had my old address (e.g. a current utility bill or the letter from the registrar sent to my address) at least the first time I voted after having registered in my new district. Of course, the law may be different in other states or I may be misremembering... ?

What is the issue? What kind of ID isn't being required where? What IDs are required? What changes are being proposed to voter identification policies to which "so many [people] express righteous indignation"?

Excuse my ignorance, but I'm unaware of the referenced voter ID issue. Please inform.

Whenever I have voted, I was required to show my driver's license (or state ID) at the voting place on election day and then my name was crossed off the list of eligible voter's. If memory serves but I'm not sure on this, I was also required to show some certain evidence of my address as well since my driver's license had my old address (e.g. a current utility bill or the letter from the registrar sent to my address) at least the first time I voted after having registered in my new district. Of course, the law may be different in other states or I may be misremembering... ?

What is the issue? What kind of ID isn't being required where? What IDs are required? What changes are being proposed to voter identification policies to which "so many [people] express righteous indignation"?

Apparently South Carolina has instituted a voter ID law which requitres a picture ID. It seems reasonable to me but not to others

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... 08612.html

The Justice Department has blocked South Carolina's new voter ID law from taking effect, claiming that the measure will put an unfair burden on minority voters.

"However analyzed, the state’s data demonstrate that nonwhite voters are both signficantly burdened by [the photo ID requirement] in absolute terms, and also disproportionately unlikely to possess the most common types of photo identification among the forms of identification that would be necessary for in-person voting under the proposed law," Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez wrote in a letter delivered to the office of South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson just as official Washington shut down for the Christmas holiday.

It is not asking too much that a voter produce a pictured ID so as to collectively restrict corruption regardless of race, religion, gender, or whatever else. Is going through the trouble to acquire proof of eligibility really too much to ask?

[Scott]

Does SC just not require any ID at all or what ID do they require in place of picture ID? Why do eligible-to-vote minorities tend to have picture IDs so much less than white people in South Carolina?

Does SC just not require any ID at all or what ID do they require in place of picture ID? Why do eligible-to-vote minorities tend to have picture IDs so much less than white people in South Carolina?

I'm far from an expert in South Carolina but the folloing just appears to be common sense.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... d_law.html

I live in South Carolina so I can explain what South Carolina's voter ID law amounts to in practical terms. I enter the polling place and approach a table where people are sitting with books that contain the names of registered voters. Since my last name is Snyder, I get in the line for the letter "S." When it's my turn, the woman at the table asks me for my name and checks to see if I am listed in her book. Once she finds my name, she asks me for identification. Since I live in South Carolina, I have a South Carolina driver's license. I hand it to her; she makes a notation in the book; and I vote. That's it....................

...............South Carolina will provide a free voter ID to anyone, but they must present documentation to prove that they are eligible to vote in South Carolina elections. They will need a birth certificate, a Social Security card, and proof of residency. According to the Justice Department and Media Matters, that's going too far since people who don't have a birth certificate will have to obtain one, and there is a cost associated with acquiring a birth certificate.

It really isn't that difficult. But this is the modern progressive mindset. It is considered insulting for a person to make the effort to prove themselves rather than an honor to provide proof.

[Scott]

Well these blogs wouldn't be credible sources of information anyway, but what is the alleged problem that warrants the would-be new, stuck-down law? What changes to that process--non-credibly described by a blog--would the would-be new, stuck-down law have made?

I would love to join in a debate about ID cards but this is about one issue that is favourite with a certain individual. From a European perspective I would rather Obama staid for six more terms than tolerate another scary republican with or without inscrutable citizen qualifications.

Well these blogs wouldn't be credible sources of information anyway, but what is the alleged problem that warrants the would-be new, stuck-down law? What changes to that process--non-credibly described by a blog--would the would-be new, stuck-down law have made?

The changes made would further efforts towards organized voter corruption.

I've learneed by experience that regardless of what is said, the essential difference between the conservative mindset and the modern progressive is that while the conservative respects "process" that furthers an ideal and in thios case freedom, the secular progressive is goal driven. The modern secular progressive is quidk to sacrifice the process the Constitution seeks to uphold in favor of transient goals.

The secular progressive value system must scorn ideas in a book such as "Justice as Compassion." Where justice is a process known also in the East as karma, it is insulting to the progressive mind.

Amazon link

Voter ID is only valued by the secular prpogreesive when it supports the "right" candidate. The idea of impartiality defended by a process only gets in the way of a goal driven mindset. The goal of the secualar progressive is peace and the road to peace was described well by Karl Marx when he wrote:

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

Obviously the absence of opposition denies freedom.

I would love to join in a debate about ID cards but this is about one issue that is favourite with a certain individual. From a European perspective I would rather Obama staid for six more terms than tolerate another scary republican with or without inscrutable citizen qualifications.

A glorious expression of modern secular progressive thought. I salute you.

I would love to join in a debate about ID cards but this is about one issue that is favourite with a certain individual. From a European perspective I would rather Obama staid for six more terms than tolerate another scary republican with or without inscrutable citizen qualifications.

A glorious expression of modern secular progressive thought. I salute you.

Well it beats a devious attention to ID cards when the real cause of the debate is far more bigoted.

I would love to join in a debate about ID cards but this is about one issue that is favourite with a certain individual. From a European perspective I would rather Obama staid for six more terms than tolerate another scary republican with or without inscrutable citizen qualifications.

A glorious expression of modern secular progressive thought. I salute you.

Well it beats a devious attention to ID cards when the real cause of the debate is far more bigoted.

Your trouble Xris is that you believe everyone is restricted to the blinders of secular progressive blinders.

From your perspective everything must be sacrificed for the sake of the goal. For example the goal of Socialism is peace. Marx describes it well

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

According to this I am against peace. Naturally such a person is a bigot in one way or another.

The Conservative ideal is blind justice and the process that supports it within the Constitution.

This is our basic difference. You are goal oriented. As a Conservative I am process oriented. In other words I know that goals are transient and what supports the "good" can only be sustained by the process which was the original intent of America. For you justice is defined by a goal and for me it is the process. You could never understand a book like Justice as Compassion because it is process oriented

Amazon link

You cannot appreciate the concern for voter fraud as natural for someone who is process oriented. Being goal oriented it is only a concern for you when it pertains to the "right" or "wrong" person in relation to your goal

I would love to join in a debate about ID cards but this is about one issue that is favourite with a certain individual. From a European perspective I would rather Obama staid for six more terms than tolerate another scary republican with or without inscrutable citizen qualifications.

A glorious expression of modern secular progressive thought. I salute you.

Well it beats a devious attention to ID cards when the real cause of the debate is far more bigoted.

I tried to reply to you but was rejected. If it appears later we will continue. If not, then that's all she wrote.

Whose she?

-- Updated Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:18 am to add the following --

I would love to join in a debate about ID cards but this is about one issue that is favourite with a certain individual. From a European perspective I would rather Obama staid for six more terms than tolerate another scary republican with or without inscrutable citizen qualifications.

A glorious expression of modern secular progressive thought. I salute you.

Well it beats a devious attention to ID cards when the real cause of the debate is far more bigoted.

Your trouble Xris is that you believe everyone is restricted to the blinders of secular progressive blinders.

From your perspective everything must be sacrificed for the sake of the goal. For example the goal of Socialism is peace. Marx describes it well

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

According to this I am against peace. Naturally such a person is a bigot in one way or another.

The Conservative ideal is blind justice and the process that supports it within the Constitution.

This is our basic difference. You are goal oriented. As a Conservative I am process oriented. In other words I know that goals are transient and what supports the "good" can only be sustained by the process which was the original intent of America. For you justice is defined by a goal and for me it is the process. You could never understand a book like Justice as Compassion because it is process oriented

Amazon link

You cannot appreciate the concern for voter fraud as natural for someone who is process oriented. Being goal oriented it is only a concern for you when it pertains to the "right" or "wrong" person in relation to your goal

I am so pleased you can read so much into one sentence about my political bent. I see it constantly in the American perspective of socialism so it is not a surprise, to me.

So what was the original intention of the American constitution? It certainly did not manifest itself to what it's proposed high ideals suggested. If we talk about true justice then you are all traitors to the crown. Rebels with self motivated interests who hide behind an ideology that suppressed millions for the benefit of the few. Conservatism still lives in that self interested enclave. It will adjust laws to fit it's needs but will insist on the letter of law when threatened. True justice would return America to the natives and compensate the Blacks for their oppression but lets not look too far back into this perfect state.