.png) |
| Source |
And yet rage-filled Progressives tell us it is "racist" to require ID to vote.
Maybe that squares with their silly idea that it is "racist" to work?
|
| Source |
And yet rage-filled Progressives tell us it is "racist" to require ID to vote.
Maybe that squares with their silly idea that it is "racist" to work?
A Democrat will be along shortly to explain to you that is totally (D)ifferent, because voting is a right and shoveling snow in an emergency is a privilege that requires government verification.
ReplyDeleteIt's only racists when you interfere with them stealing an election.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing they just want the non-minorities shoveling snow!
ReplyDeleteGreat comparison, job postings should absolutely be the bar we use for a fundamental right like voting. I assume you'll also support imposing drug tests, college degree requirements and minimum 5 years of experience before voting, right?
ReplyDeleteAnd for the sake of consistency regarding 'papers, please' for rights, I assume you've never complained about licenses & ID required for firearm ownership, concealed carrying and the like?
Would be impressive to see posts that show a fraction of critical thinking in the future.
Rather large pile of Strawmen you assembled here Gary.
DeleteWhere in the above is any mention of drug tests, college degrees and all that?
What would be impressive Gary is you actually use your own "critical thinking" instead of throwing gunk around.
Our local library requires a ID AND a library card to check out materials.
DeleteThe damage a person can do to society by fraudlently checking out materials with somebody else's library card is trivial compared to the collective damage that can be done via electoral fraud.
You are viewing it through the lens of "It is the citizen's right!!" Many other people look at it from the standpoint of the COSTS of letting people with no skin-in-the-game vote.
Even if you want to look at it from a "rights" standpoint, I lost my right to properly guide the government when my vote is nullified by fraudlent votes.
That's not a strawman - it's following the faulty logic of comparing job post requirements to rights restrictions.
DeleteThere's a reason 'papers, please' is a negative phrase. It's not because people support running cover for illegal activity, it's because giving the government power to restrict your rights unless you go through XYZ bureaucratic process is antithetical to our ideas.
Your astute observation is correct - there's no mention of drug tests or degrees on *that* job post. Those are present on other job posts, though.
The point is, comparing job posts to restrictions on rights is not helpful if Joe's being serious, nor is it clever if he's joking around.
Reality is, there's already restrictions on rights, such as restrictions on concealed carry and other aspects of firearm ownership. I'd wager Joe is critical of this in some aspects, so it's disappointing to see him cheer on restrictions to other rights, like the right to vote.
Just because someone opposes specific proposals for implementations of bureaucracy on top of the right to vote doesn't mean they want non-citizens or otherwise unqualified people to vote. Similarly, just because someone opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms doesn't mean they want people to commit crimes with guns or support school shootings.
The argument in this post is contributing to the giant garbage pile of faulty partisan argumentation that is rotting this country.
You do seem willing to "wager" on other folks opinions.
DeleteThat BTW is called Projecting.
Restricting "rights" seems a disease both sides are afflicted with.
So while you have your "critical" thinking hat on tell us how Susan Rice's comments should be seen.
Seems a pretty clever threat against Trump supporters when they are back in power.
Please post on that article, it's easy to find on Joes blog.
Yep - I think it's a safe bet. The guy who's anti-government and anti-regulation (when it's not his political party doing it) is likely against increasing restrictions on the right to bear arms. Fun part is, there's a plethora of opinion pieces on this blog that you can search for, specifically regarding 'common sense' gun laws.
DeleteI don't think you understand what projecting is. Here's a helpful link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Guessing someone's opinion on something isn't projection. Projection would be if I said "you love arguing online and spend way too much time doing so" to someone who simply disagrees with me. Because it's actually *me* who loves arguing online and spends too much time doing so.
In this case, I don't hold the opinion I'm wagering Joe has on the right to bear arms.
I'll get right on your deflection request when you address the actual critique being made here.
LOL in other words your not going to post on that article.
DeleteYou have no "actual critique" posted. Just clever wordsmithing.
Excellent deflection.