Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
There are people who do not have an extra 13 dollars. All this does is deny access to the poor. Just another way to discriminate
Do you recall that polls indicate that Obama has that state and the previous election fell on Obama? Your excuse for him doesn't wash BeenthereI all ready have my friend, Rep Turzai was correct, now that voter fraud will be reduced, Mitt Romney will probably win!
SCOTUS also ruled 6-3 that requiring an ID to vote in not a burden in 2008, so tough shit. This "repeal" is a dead end train, so put on your big boy pants and suck it up. I am tired of you whining all over the forums pointing fingers and calling names. Its like explaining to a two year old why throwing a tantrum will not get you what you want.in order to obtain the ID and thus be allowed to vote, you must first pay a sum of money to the government.
what would you call it when you have to pay a sum of money to the government in order to be able to vote?
when the SCOTUS ruled on the PPACA, you called having to pay a sum of money to the government a tax.
can't have it both ways, failbot.
Yet you have no problem keeping hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters from casting ballots in the interest of preventing a few cases of fraud.No I do not, that is a poll tax.
But i do support a law that requires a voter to prove who they say they are, I don't want any voter to be disenfranchised by their vote being cancelled out by illegal votes!
SCOTUS also ruled 6-3 that requiring an ID to vote in not a burden in 2008, so tough shit. This "repeal" is a dead end train, so put on your big boy pants and suck it up. I am tired of you whining all over the forums pointing fingers and calling names. Its like explaining to a two year old why throwing a tantrum will not get you what you want.
That's still not forcing them to get an ID.Republicans in the states in question Red. Either they get ID or they do not vote.
The only way for someone to prove they are a legitimate voter is with an ID verification, so your argument is moot.Yet you have no problem keeping hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters from casting ballots in the interest of preventing a few cases of fraud.
Your only argument boils down toThe only way for someone to prove they are a legitimate voter is with a ID verification, so you're argument is moot.
The only way for someone to prove they are a legitimate voter is with a ID verification, so you're argument is moot.
They weren't, that's the point. The times, they are a changin'.Then how were they proven legitimate before ID was required?
The only way for someone to prove they are a legitimate voter is with a ID verification, so you're argument is moot.
Douchebag racebaiter says what?Your only argument boils down to
"whatever gets that black man out of office is ok with me"
They weren't, that's the point. The times, they are a changin'.
Too slow, corrected LONG before your post, go check simpleton.
Douchebag racebaiter says what?
Douchebag racebaiter says what?
Too slow, corrected LONG before your post, go check simpleton.
Aww, somebody lost yet another argument in a long string of defeats. It MUST be time to start posting jpegs. You can ALWAYS count on liberals to try to marginalize their opponents when they have been trounced.
We went through this before, remember genius? You even made a half-ass apology for an almost identical claim. You're mixing up your opponents, moron.I am not the one with a racist posting history
you are
BTW g-5
"no you are a racist"