There are laws against poisoning the drinking water of a city. No one has ever actually done it though. Following the logic spouted here therefore, those laws are ridiculous and unnecessary. It really is illustrative of the warped mindset of liberals that they can work themselves into selfrighteous hysteria over a law requiring a simple ID to vote. Of course, arguing themselves blue in the face over it beats defending Obama's plan to enact the biggest tax increase in the history of the world.
There is no legitimate argument against requiring a photo ID to vote. If democrats really think voters will be disenfranchised, then they should help get these people a photo ID.
This is really all it comes down to. This "issue" is so friggen basic that sometimes I wonder if some folks like to argue simply to argue.
Sigh! Do I read the English language much? Yes, and I write it very well. You on the other hand, do not. Here I quote myself: Read the above quotation carefully Tsing Tao and you will realize that you did not read it carefully the first time. You behavior is embarrassing enough, I need not throw salt on your wounds.
So, again, you're saying and committing to the statement that a signature "is far more difficult to fake than a driver's license." And you're holding to this belief? And you think I'm the lunatic?
You realize there's a whole bunch of real estate before 46 that is still acceptable in today's culture, don't you?
No, I think you are an idiot. The record speaks for itself. You have early onset Alzheimers or have a frontal lobe lesion.