Doctor Fate wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Let's see . . . I say "let's ignore all that . . ." and you want to debate all that. Brilliant.

Well, I did not realise it was an order, it looked more like rhetorical sarcasm. Of course you drop them in for a reason, and you don't actually want us to ignore it at all. And you want us to accept it without question?

No, it just happens to be true. Of course, you want to argue about lesser anti-histamines that can't be turned into meth.

It doesn't matter what the "purpose" for checking ID's for alcohol and other things is, the point is that somehow minorities and the poor manage to get them. Did you ever see a protest about not being able to buy alcohol because of ID requirements? Why is that?

Oh, because they can get ID?

Because many people don't need ID to buy alcohol. Because those who do and don't have it can easily get someone else to do it for them. Because it may be about different forms of ID, even. Because not all vendors actually check ID.

You are missing my point. ID is required as an age check for alcohol. Some of the people who have raised problems with voting ID are quite old - a pattern is people who were born out of state decades ago and maybe were not registered properly at birth. These are people who are unlikely to be asked for ID when buying alcohol.

Sorry, but again this is false. There are businesses who "card" everyone.

Also, I've never seen liberals restrict their arguments about ID laws being discriminatory to the elderly only.

What proposals have Democrats put forward to ensure Voter ID laws can be implemented?

Is vote fraud common in American politics? Not according to United States District Judge Lynn Adelman, who examined the evidence from Wisconsin and ruled in late April that “virtually no voter impersonation occurs” in the state and that “no evidence suggests that voter-impersonation fraud will become a problem at any time in the foreseeable future.”

Give every citizen a photo ID that must be used. Simple... Also it could be used for SSI payments

There is disagreement about whether the Real ID Act institutes a "national identification card" system.[91] The new law only sets forth national standards, but leaves the issuance of cards and the maintenance of databases in state hands; therefore, the Department of Homeland Security claims it is not a "national ID" system.[92] Web sites such as no2realid.org, unrealid.com, and realnightmare.org argue that this is a trivial distinction, and that the new cards are in fact national ID cards, thanks to the uniform national standards created by the AAMVA and (especially) the linked databases, and by the fact that such identification is mandatory if people wish to travel out of the United States.
Many advocacy groups and individual opponents of the Real ID Act believe that having a Real ID-compliant license may become a requirement for various basic tasks. Thus a January 2008 statement by ACLU of Maryland says: "The law places no limits on potential required uses for Real IDs. In time, Real IDs could be required to vote, collect a Social Security check, access Medicaid, open a bank account, go to an Orioles game, or buy a gun. The private sector could begin mandating a Real ID to perform countless commercial and financial activities, such as renting a DVD or buying car insurance. Real ID cards would become a necessity, making them de facto national IDs". However, in order to perform many of those tasks, government-issued identification is already required (e.g., two forms of ID – usually a driver's license, passport, or Social Security card – are required by the Patriot Act in order to open a bank account).[93]
Some critics claim that the Real ID Act violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as a federal legislation in an area that, under the terms of the Tenth Amendment, is the province of the states. Thus, Anthony Romero, the executive director of ACLU, stated: "Real ID is an unfunded mandate that violates the Constitution's 10th Amendment on state powers, destroys states' dual sovereignty and consolidates every American's private information, leaving all of us far more vulnerable to identity thieves".[94]
Former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr wrote in a February 2008 article: "A person not possessing a Real ID Act-compliant identification card could not enter any federal building, or an office of his or her congressman or senator or the U.S. Capitol. This effectively denies that person their fundamental rights to assembly and to petition the government as guaranteed in the First Amendment".[95]

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Let's see . . . I say "let's ignore all that . . ." and you want to debate all that. Brilliant.

Well, I did not realise it was an order, it looked more like rhetorical sarcasm. Of course you drop them in for a reason, and you don't actually want us to ignore it at all. And you want us to accept it without question?

No, it just happens to be true. Of course, you want to argue about lesser anti-histamines that can't be turned into meth.

Well, no. Please cite where all alcohol sales require ID.

An out of state visitor attempting to enjoy an alcoholic beverage in the Commonwealth, however, may be surprised when their driver’s license is not accepted at a bar or package store because while many Massachusetts retail licensees accept out of state identification, they do so at their own peril.
Pursuant to Section 34B of Chapter 138, in order to avoid being cited for serving alcohol to a minor, a licensed retailer may only reasonably rely upon a customer’s Massachusetts driver’s license, liquor purchase identification card issued by the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, military ID, or Passport. Out of state driver’s licenses can be accepted by a retailer but should that identification turn out to be either a fake driver’s license or the driver’s license of someone other than the customer, the retailer will be held liable for the violation of service to a minor even if that person’s out of state driver’s license looked real and passed through a scanner designed to spot fake ID’s.

Also, Pseudoephedrine is not an antihistamine. It is a decongestant that can be used alongside antihistamines to help relieve symptoms. Other substances can also relieve symptoms but fo not require ID. What are the ID requirements for antihistamines - please cite them, or accept that you do not need ID for all allergy medicine.

"you" want to argue because I had the temerity to challenge your "facts" as absolutes.

You're funny. The law doesn't matter because there are ways of avoiding it? Therefore, ID requirements are not discriminatory?

Please cite the law on ID for alcohol sales. Please show where it is mandatory for all sales.

There are, but they are not legally obliged to - they are liable for sales to minors, and should card everyone who looks like they may be underage, but do not have to get ID for every alcohol purchase.

So what would someone without ID do? Go to a business that does not card everyone.

Also, I've never seen liberals restrict their arguments about ID laws being discriminatory to the elderly only.

Well, no, it tends to be old black folks who have problems with ID.

freeman3 wrote:I'm not exactly sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that those people being identified as not having a government-issued photo actually have one? If so, do you have any evidence for that?Or are you saying that because they belong to a minority group in an area that purchases a lot of alcohol and that requires ID, that even though that particular individual does not have ID that since his racial group as a whole is able to get ID when it needs it to purchase alcohol this means it would be easy for that individual to get ID?

In any case, the right to vote is not on the same level as the purchasing of alcohol. First, voting is a right and there should be no unnecessary encumbrances on the exercise of that right. The purchasing of alcohol does not have the same standing as the right to vote and therefore more burdens could be put on it. Also, requiring an ID for purchasing alcohol has a valid purpose, to protect against underage drinking. And of course without the ID people who were underage would try to buy alcohol, as opposed to voter ID laws where there is almost no evidence of fraudulent voting. With alcohol the purpose has real-world validity; this has not been shown with voter ID laws.

freeman3 wrote:The point is Brad that a significant number of people are able to live their lives without a government-issued photo ID. And while it may very well be that they would go to great lengths to get a photo ID for something they really need (e.g. Government benefits) they won't do it to vote. Voting should not be unnecessarily encumbered. But you probably get to the same result if you required that everyone getting Medicare or any kind of government benefit to get a government-issued photo ID.

freeman3 wrote:The point is Brad that a significant number of people are able to live their lives without a government-issued photo ID. And while it may very well be that they would go to great lengths to get a photo ID for something they really need (e.g. Government benefits) they won't do it to vote. Voting should not be unnecessarily encumbered. But you probably get to the same result if you required that everyone getting Medicare or any kind of government benefit to get a government-issued photo ID.

freeman3 wrote:This analysis from politifact covers the data on the number of people not having photo ID pretty well.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statemen ... -voters-l/