Discussion in 'Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs' started by tinydancer, Feb 13, 2013.
I did yesterday. He/she said no.
Why am I not surprised ?
She's been a loud mouth dork from the start.
Voter ID is only part of the issue. Are you open to including changes made by Republican Legislatures and Republican Governors to reduce hours polling places are open, shorten the time to register to vote, reduce the number of polling places in districts likely to vote Democratic? Are do you believe such tactics are not in employ?
It's a call out thread...moron.
OK so list out all the points.
Then you and whoever agree WHICH ones are the key points to debate.
Don't worry if you can't even agree on that.
the discussion AROUND the points is ALSO important and valuable,
so thank you for that! the whole process of hashing out issues is what we need, even if we don't change or agree on things.
I don't fraternize with morons (which means basically liberals).
It's still a call out thread or haven't you figured it out.
If you dorks would mind the board rules, things would work a lot better.
The issue is not voter ID! I don't oppose that. The issue is voter suppression, and the GOP's goal is obvious, too suppress the vote of likely Democratic voters. Only liars and the mentally impaired believe otherwise.
If Voter ID is the only issue, then the congress needs to pass a bill with a specific and defined description of what form of ID is acceptable and fund the means for every citizen to obtain it, in federal, state and local elections.
IMO, such a bill ought to require every polling place in every federal election to open simultaneously on the first saturday after the first Tuesday in November and close on the following Tuesday simultaneously.
Oh, and fuck off Listening, you're one dumb and partisan pos.
Dear tinydancer and Wry Catcher:
As a believer in free speech, I ask not to put restriction on time.
I ask to set up the discussion where it can lead to resolving the root causes of conflict
and reach a healthy constructive resolution.
if it takes talking about additional issues, then lay those out.
That's more important than setting up a straw man or whatever that is not the real problem.
We aren't going to resolve public policies either if we keep limited the laws and discussions
to just what is convenient. We need to base it on what works to resolve grievances and represent the people.
So that usually takes more than 3 hours talking about 1 thing if the issue involves MORE than that.
I say go for resolving the issue.
if you don't have time, if you tell me what the conflict is, I can offer to volunteer to step in,
but I may be on WC side equally as the other. So I may not be able to help all the way, only halfway with some of it.
My issues with voting are the entire set up is FU.
People do not need to be competing by party
which is as bound to fail as voting by religion, to pit Muslims against Hindus
where you encourage bullying. So I say we need to resolve conflicts first
and then elect hire and appoint people who can represent and mediate to defend those interests.
All views beliefs and objections shoudl be included.
tinydancer if we keep running elections and writing legislation to limit choices to
either A or B with only 3 hours to resolve how to write out option A and B,
we continue to fail. so no, I think the whole approach needs overhaul.
and once we set it up right, then it won't matter so much if there is ID or not
because each party will be responsible for its own members. so if you don't
card or track your members, then you will end up paying for a bunch of freeloaders.
Leave it to parties to be responsible financially and legally for policies for their members,
and I bet they will find a way to check membership with or without ID.
Separate names with a comma.