And why should not the rich pay a larger fraction? It is they who benefit. The richer you are, in the US, the more you owe the US government* (as the proxy of Society) for creating the background of infrastructure, stable laws, an educated workforce and providing the economic and military security and legal protection via contract and copyright/patent law that made your wealth possible in the first place.
You can't really resell sports games like they're talking about anyway. Last year I went to go resell Madden and NHL 2010 in August (so it was almost the next season for both leagues) and got like 5 bucks for it. If they're talking all the games on all the platforms, up to $80 per year would be a decent enough deal that I'd take it. Since I normally only buy Madden, this gets EA/Microsoft/ whoever else $20 more bucks a year to split. And the ability to sell me DLC at what I assume to be full price.
Yes, USAian is silly. Use US American unless it's clear from the context that you mean someone from USA.
The American continents are a big place. (Technically, they're TWO big places.) There is a wide variety of... well, pretty much everything. The richest people on Earth live here, but so do some of the poorest. Every kind of terrain, from Arctic tundra to sweltering desert, is represented. There are democratic republics and communist dictatorships. And there's no central government overseeing the whole thing.
Europe is more homogeneous in pretty much all those ways. (There's also the EU, which is supposed to be a "Government of Europe, right?") Because most places in Europe are more similar to each other than most places on the American continents, it makes sense to talk about "Europeans" generally. Realistically, the only things that pretty much everyone from North or South America has in common is that they're people. They have that in common with Europeans too.
If, for some reason, you need to refer to everyone from North or South America, the term is "North and South Americans." Otherwise, the context in all cases "American" is used means "from the United States of America." If you think otherwise, you're being deliberately obtuse.
There's a different country called the Republic of China. (You probably know it as Taiwan.) It's like how anyone who uses the phrase "USAian" is an idiot, because, among other things, there are two countries on the American continents with "United States" in their name, while there's only one with "America."
Now, I believe that the Bill of Rights (not the Constitution itself, due to that nasty 3/5th compromise) is one of the greatest ideas in history
Interestingly, the point of the 3/5 compromise was to kill slavery. If a slave counted for one person for purposes of representation, the slave states would have 2/5ths more representation than they got under the actual Constitution. They would have used that extra representation to hang on to slavery for as long as possible.
This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in American history.
Rumors? I'm typing this on a Transformer now. The transformer is alread out in all regions. I paid $550 USD for the 16 GB tablet and the dock. 32 would have been $100 more. I completely recommend it.
Timothy could have called it the "old time practice" of calling games via ticker tape or something. He also calls it "Ronald Reagan's exploits" (Exploits are usually bad, right? Especially on slashdot, where they tend to mean someone can break into your system) and puts "live" in scare quotes. (Reagan, like everyone else who did this, WAS doing a live broadcast. It wasn't taped or anything. He just wasn't physically present at the ballpark.)
This was a poor editorial job, but hey, what are Slashdot editors for?
Also of interest, you are apparently making an ad hominem attack. I didn't think that this was an example of an ad hominem attack, but according to another post that you made in this thread...
Where did I attack you or CNN in order to malign the argument via 3rd party attacks? I didn't. Thus you are, as always, wrong (now that is an ad hominem attack).
See, I also said the bolded part, which you cut out of your reply. I know it's not a real ad hominem attack, but you were called out on your source for a fact elsewhere in the topic and replied "HURF DURF AD HOMINEM." You apply one set of rules to your evidence and another set of rules to mine. This (and the direction your posts slant in) suggests to me that you inhabit a fantasy world where Republicans are evil and Democrats can do no wrong. You're too far gone, but I want to make sure others reading the topic know how wrong you are.
But when someone is ignoring the topic at hand and launching an unrelated attack at the source for the purpose of undermining the argument, I'll not be afraid to point it out.
Interestingly, the last post you made had nothing to do with IDs, immigration, or voting, and everything to do with attacking me. Just a heads up.
[Y]ou quote me as saying "Attacking the source (whether me or the cite[sic]) is an ad hominem." However, your "sic" is inappropriate. The word there is accurate and has meaning in the context.
This is the only reason I replied, because I'd like/.ers to not make this error. To "cite" something means "to point to something from another work as evidence to support your argument." A "citiation" is "a thing that was cited." One is a noun, and one is a verb. The block should have read "...whether me or the citation." Yes, I'm well aware that using "[sic]" to point out that you're wrong about what "ad hominem" means would be using it improperly.
Fun fact: In a different post in this topic, AK Marc attacked me for posting a CNN article that proved my point. Seems only he's allowed to make "ad hominem attacks."
It's not proof of citizenship, it's proof of residence. You have to live IN YOUR DISTRICT and your ID, with your current address, reflects that.
Your beliefs and reality conflict. I believe reality over your personal opinion.
Where's the conflict? That the law states that you are only allowed to have legal residence in one place at a time, and thus can only vote in that one place? Or that your ID is required by law to state your current address? Or is there an address in the United States that is in more than one district?
CNN has an example of a blatant case of voter fraud [cnn.com]. If you can get fake people on the rolls, you can send in people claiming to be those people (lying about who they are.) Note that ACORN, the group in the story, was involved in other such shenanigans across the country. Enough regularity or possibility to swing an election for you?
The article says it was one person who was in ACORN who submitted the registration forms which were rejected (such that there was no fraudulent vote cast). So no, I don't accept one attempt to stuff the rolls with absolutely zero actual cast votes as proof that the number of fraudulent votes that would be stopped with ID to affect any elections.
Except that if there was enough of a swing to affect an election, it by definition wouldn't have been caught (because they would have stopped it.) There were other examples from the 2008 election, I just took the first news story from a google search. Do your own damn research.
Also of interest, you are apparently making an ad hominem attack. I didn't think that this was an example of an ad hominem attack, but according to another post that you made in this thread
You said that yesterday in this very topic to someone asking legitimate questions about your use of a much more dubious source than a CNN article. I'm done arguing with such an obvious liberal troll, so let's look at the facts. You said that there are only two states that require ID to vote and that those states have a free ID that you can use to establish your identity at the poll. Therefore, those ID laws do NOT constitute poll taxes. You haven't pointed to any proposed law that would require ID to vote without allowing for a free state issued ID, so no future voter ID law will institute a poll tax. So therefore, a voter ID law isn't a "poll tax." It's a thing that makes it harder to commit election fraud (no matter how minor, insignificant, or easily overlooked because it helps AK Marc's favorite candidate.)
I'm going to point this out in the other branch of the thread where you called the other guy questioning your numbers an ad hominem attack, then I'm done arguing with you. Your arguments are logically inconsistent. Whoever taught you logic committed serious educational malpractice. I hope you weren't educated in a public school, because I would feel AWFUL for having helped pay for that.
The idea is to prevent voter fraud. In order to vote, you should have to prove you're on the roll. How do you propose to do that without an ID?
Why, if you are a real voter, would you need to present proof of citizenship to get the ID? It seems to just be an additional hurdle, since that should be established before you are on the roll. But the more restrictions the better, right?
It's not proof of citizenship, it's proof of residence. You have to live IN YOUR DISTRICT and your ID, with your current address, reflects that.
And how many people vote who lie about who they are? I've seen assertions of problems with this, but nothing that actually backs up that this happens with any regularity or in numbers sufficient to sway elections.
CNN has an example of a blatant case of voter fraud. If you can get fake people on the rolls, you can send in people claiming to be those people (lying about who they are.) Note that ACORN, the group in the story, was involved in other such shenanigans across the country. Enough regularity or possibility to swing an election for you?
Illegal immigrants have valid picture IDs?
What does "valid" have to do with it? If someone walks up to you to vote and presents a government issued ID matching them to the name on the roll, how would you possibly be able to determine that they obtained that ID with forged documents?
Same way a bartender can. If the document is fake, they'll turn you away. Problem solved. (Presumably the government would do this as well when issuing new IDs based on older ones, i.e. people with fake birth certificates can't use them to get real driver's licenses.)
I'd like a cite to that. There are two and only two states currently that will not let you vote unless you present them a picture ID. They both give voter ID cards for free. I'm unaware of any others, including ones which do demand picture ID, which have free ID cards.
Do your own research then. Most states have them for other purposes (buying alcohol and whatnot) and would presumably allow them under a voter ID law.
The problem is with the millions of American non-citizens who are also unable to get IDs.
That's irrelevant. I don't see what that has to do with this at all, other than Republicans drudge up this lie in order to confuse the issue. The right to vote should be verified to get on the roll, not judged at the poll.
The idea is to prevent voter fraud. In order to vote, you should have to prove you're on the roll. How do you propose to do that without an ID?
Additionally, illegals do have picture ID.
Illegal immigrants have valid picture IDs? From who? (Note that LEGAL immigrants have picture IDs that are not accepted for voting purposes because they're not, you know, citizens.)
Timothy, back in the day, everyone in the in the industry did broadcasts by ticker tape for away games. Reagan didn't invent the idea. (Back then, it was considered too expensive to send the radio crew to the away games.) The audience knew what was going on, just like they know that professional wrestling is fixed. It wasn't a Reagan thing, but thanks for implying that he was a liar.
Ok, so if any old id will be accepted like AARP cards, why aren't student photo id's being accepted under these laws? Could it be that these here student folks tend to vote liberal? Huh?
The Texas law will NOT accept AARP cards. Student IDs aren't accepted because they don't prove your residence. Did your college ID card have your address on it? Mine sure didn't.
For example the Texas ID law exempts registered gun owners and senior citizens from the ID requirement. Hmmmm I wonder how these folks tend to vote?
No it doesn't. It allows gun owners with concealed carry permits to show their concealed carry permit and seniors to show the ID they use for Medicare. The Texas concealed carry permit shows your name, picture, physical description, date of birth, current address, and unique identification number; to get one you need (among other things) a Social Security number, a driver’s license, employment and residential history, a working email, and a major credit card. In other words, it establishes the hell out of who you are.
I don't have the specifics in front of me for the Medicare ID card, but I'm sure it works the same way.
Also, Texas will issue you a State Identification Card that is valid for voting free of charge. You have to be a citizen and it will show your address (so you can't vote in another district) but the card is free.
Showing ID requires ID. When the state will give you an ID card for free, then it will no longer be a poll tax. Until then, it is a de facto poll tax, even if that poll tax is $20 every 4 years or some other small number.
Most states offer a free "non-driver ID" for this exact reason. Especially states that would pass a Voter ID law. Being able to get a free state issued ID (that would be valid for voting) is the norm in this country, not the exception. The problem is with the millions of American non-citizens who are also unable to get IDs. That and the millions of Americans who want to vote in a place they don't actually live in.
I meant to be speaking in absolutes. Their continued presence in the United States is still a crime. Why are their parents encouraging them to commit a crime rather than have the family immigrate the legal way?
By definition, anyone who is an illegal immigrant has committed at least one crime. Otherwise, they wouldn't be illegal immigrants, now would they?
It's a full Android system, with all the access to the App Markets that that implies. I'm not sure if there are compilers and IDEs on the App Market, but things like Python are there. I wouldn't try to program on it because of how small the keyboard is, but I wouldn't program on a netbook for the same reason.
So touch screen netbooks are most likely next. Combine the best features of both.
Check out the Asus Transformer. For $550, it's a 16 GB Android tablet with a keyboard/trackpad that attaches to it and folds over the entire screen. (Note that the keyboard is a separate piece than the tablet proper, and $550 is the cost for both pieces together.)
The leaked e-mails include an incident where a car was impounded because his ID was suspected to be a fraudulent Mexican driver's license.
You're allowed to drive in US border states with a valid Mexican license, as long as you leave when your permission to be here expires. Having a problem with a suspected fraudulent license is different from an immigration issue, no matter who issued the license.
I don't. But a traffic stop is a good example of a time where the police can specifically require a driver's license (which is always proof of residence.) Any time police have made an arrest for a violation of any law (wrongdoing, right?) is a time the police should be asking for some form of identification and the legal address of the person they arrested. The justice system clearly needs an address for someone who's been arrested, right?
Since we should already be asking people for their legal address when they get arrested or get a citation, it's not that great a leap to check immigration status for people who are here legally. It should only cause problems for illegals, which is, of course, the point.
Slashdot Mirror
And why should not the rich pay a larger fraction? It is they who benefit. The richer you are, in the US, the more you owe the US government* (as the proxy of Society) for creating the background of infrastructure, stable laws, an educated workforce and providing the economic and military security and legal protection via contract and copyright/patent law that made your wealth possible in the first place.
Taxes ARE a percentage, you know.
You can't really resell sports games like they're talking about anyway. Last year I went to go resell Madden and NHL 2010 in August (so it was almost the next season for both leagues) and got like 5 bucks for it. If they're talking all the games on all the platforms, up to $80 per year would be a decent enough deal that I'd take it. Since I normally only buy Madden, this gets EA/Microsoft/ whoever else $20 more bucks a year to split. And the ability to sell me DLC at what I assume to be full price.
Yes, USAian is silly. Use US American unless it's clear from the context that you mean someone from USA.
The American continents are a big place. (Technically, they're TWO big places.) There is a wide variety of... well, pretty much everything. The richest people on Earth live here, but so do some of the poorest. Every kind of terrain, from Arctic tundra to sweltering desert, is represented. There are democratic republics and communist dictatorships. And there's no central government overseeing the whole thing.
Europe is more homogeneous in pretty much all those ways. (There's also the EU, which is supposed to be a "Government of Europe, right?") Because most places in Europe are more similar to each other than most places on the American continents, it makes sense to talk about "Europeans" generally. Realistically, the only things that pretty much everyone from North or South America has in common is that they're people. They have that in common with Europeans too.
If, for some reason, you need to refer to everyone from North or South America, the term is "North and South Americans." Otherwise, the context in all cases "American" is used means "from the United States of America." If you think otherwise, you're being deliberately obtuse.
There's a different country called the Republic of China. (You probably know it as Taiwan.) It's like how anyone who uses the phrase "USAian" is an idiot, because, among other things, there are two countries on the American continents with "United States" in their name, while there's only one with "America."
Now, I believe that the Bill of Rights (not the Constitution itself, due to that nasty 3/5th compromise) is one of the greatest ideas in history
Interestingly, the point of the 3/5 compromise was to kill slavery. If a slave counted for one person for purposes of representation, the slave states would have 2/5ths more representation than they got under the actual Constitution. They would have used that extra representation to hang on to slavery for as long as possible.
This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in American history.
Rumors? I'm typing this on a Transformer now. The transformer is alread out in all regions. I paid $550 USD for the 16 GB tablet and the dock. 32 would have been $100 more. I completely recommend it.
This was a poor editorial job, but hey, what are Slashdot editors for?
Also of interest, you are apparently making an ad hominem attack. I didn't think that this was an example of an ad hominem attack, but according to another post that you made in this thread...
Where did I attack you or CNN in order to malign the argument via 3rd party attacks? I didn't. Thus you are, as always, wrong (now that is an ad hominem attack).
See, I also said the bolded part, which you cut out of your reply. I know it's not a real ad hominem attack, but you were called out on your source for a fact elsewhere in the topic and replied "HURF DURF AD HOMINEM." You apply one set of rules to your evidence and another set of rules to mine. This (and the direction your posts slant in) suggests to me that you inhabit a fantasy world where Republicans are evil and Democrats can do no wrong. You're too far gone, but I want to make sure others reading the topic know how wrong you are.
But when someone is ignoring the topic at hand and launching an unrelated attack at the source for the purpose of undermining the argument, I'll not be afraid to point it out.
Interestingly, the last post you made had nothing to do with IDs, immigration, or voting, and everything to do with attacking me. Just a heads up.
[Y]ou quote me as saying "Attacking the source (whether me or the cite[sic]) is an ad hominem." However, your "sic" is inappropriate. The word there is accurate and has meaning in the context.
This is the only reason I replied, because I'd like /.ers to not make this error. To "cite" something means "to point to something from another work as evidence to support your argument." A "citiation" is "a thing that was cited." One is a noun, and one is a verb. The block should have read "...whether me or the citation." Yes, I'm well aware that using "[sic]" to point out that you're wrong about what "ad hominem" means would be using it improperly.
EDIT: This is the correct link to AK Marc's "ad hominem attack."
Fun fact: In a different post in this topic, AK Marc attacked me for posting a CNN article that proved my point. Seems only he's allowed to make "ad hominem attacks."
It's not proof of citizenship, it's proof of residence. You have to live IN YOUR DISTRICT and your ID, with your current address, reflects that.
Your beliefs and reality conflict. I believe reality over your personal opinion.
Where's the conflict? That the law states that you are only allowed to have legal residence in one place at a time, and thus can only vote in that one place? Or that your ID is required by law to state your current address? Or is there an address in the United States that is in more than one district?
CNN has an example of a blatant case of voter fraud [cnn.com]. If you can get fake people on the rolls, you can send in people claiming to be those people (lying about who they are.) Note that ACORN, the group in the story, was involved in other such shenanigans across the country. Enough regularity or possibility to swing an election for you?
The article says it was one person who was in ACORN who submitted the registration forms which were rejected (such that there was no fraudulent vote cast). So no, I don't accept one attempt to stuff the rolls with absolutely zero actual cast votes as proof that the number of fraudulent votes that would be stopped with ID to affect any elections.
Except that if there was enough of a swing to affect an election, it by definition wouldn't have been caught (because they would have stopped it.) There were other examples from the 2008 election, I just took the first news story from a google search. Do your own damn research.
Also of interest, you are apparently making an ad hominem attack. I didn't think that this was an example of an ad hominem attack, but according to another post that you made in this thread
Attacking the source (whether me or the cite[sic]) is an ad hominem. You chose to insult the source as a means of belittling the information gained from it, rather than actually addressing the content, which is ad hominem."
You said that yesterday in this very topic to someone asking legitimate questions about your use of a much more dubious source than a CNN article. I'm done arguing with such an obvious liberal troll, so let's look at the facts. You said that there are only two states that require ID to vote and that those states have a free ID that you can use to establish your identity at the poll. Therefore, those ID laws do NOT constitute poll taxes. You haven't pointed to any proposed law that would require ID to vote without allowing for a free state issued ID, so no future voter ID law will institute a poll tax. So therefore, a voter ID law isn't a "poll tax." It's a thing that makes it harder to commit election fraud (no matter how minor, insignificant, or easily overlooked because it helps AK Marc's favorite candidate.)
I'm going to point this out in the other branch of the thread where you called the other guy questioning your numbers an ad hominem attack, then I'm done arguing with you. Your arguments are logically inconsistent. Whoever taught you logic committed serious educational malpractice. I hope you weren't educated in a public school, because I would feel AWFUL for having helped pay for that.
The idea is to prevent voter fraud. In order to vote, you should have to prove you're on the roll. How do you propose to do that without an ID?
Why, if you are a real voter, would you need to present proof of citizenship to get the ID? It seems to just be an additional hurdle, since that should be established before you are on the roll. But the more restrictions the better, right?
It's not proof of citizenship, it's proof of residence. You have to live IN YOUR DISTRICT and your ID, with your current address, reflects that.
And how many people vote who lie about who they are? I've seen assertions of problems with this, but nothing that actually backs up that this happens with any regularity or in numbers sufficient to sway elections.
CNN has an example of a blatant case of voter fraud. If you can get fake people on the rolls, you can send in people claiming to be those people (lying about who they are.) Note that ACORN, the group in the story, was involved in other such shenanigans across the country. Enough regularity or possibility to swing an election for you?
Illegal immigrants have valid picture IDs?
What does "valid" have to do with it? If someone walks up to you to vote and presents a government issued ID matching them to the name on the roll, how would you possibly be able to determine that they obtained that ID with forged documents?
Same way a bartender can. If the document is fake, they'll turn you away. Problem solved. (Presumably the government would do this as well when issuing new IDs based on older ones, i.e. people with fake birth certificates can't use them to get real driver's licenses.)
I'd like a cite to that. There are two and only two states currently that will not let you vote unless you present them a picture ID. They both give voter ID cards for free. I'm unaware of any others, including ones which do demand picture ID, which have free ID cards.
Do your own research then. Most states have them for other purposes (buying alcohol and whatnot) and would presumably allow them under a voter ID law.
The problem is with the millions of American non-citizens who are also unable to get IDs.
That's irrelevant. I don't see what that has to do with this at all, other than Republicans drudge up this lie in order to confuse the issue. The right to vote should be verified to get on the roll, not judged at the poll.
The idea is to prevent voter fraud. In order to vote, you should have to prove you're on the roll. How do you propose to do that without an ID?
Additionally, illegals do have picture ID.
Illegal immigrants have valid picture IDs? From who? (Note that LEGAL immigrants have picture IDs that are not accepted for voting purposes because they're not, you know, citizens.)
Timothy, back in the day, everyone in the in the industry did broadcasts by ticker tape for away games. Reagan didn't invent the idea. (Back then, it was considered too expensive to send the radio crew to the away games.) The audience knew what was going on, just like they know that professional wrestling is fixed. It wasn't a Reagan thing, but thanks for implying that he was a liar.
Ok, so if any old id will be accepted like AARP cards, why aren't student photo id's being accepted under these laws? Could it be that these here student folks tend to vote liberal? Huh?
The Texas law will NOT accept AARP cards. Student IDs aren't accepted because they don't prove your residence. Did your college ID card have your address on it? Mine sure didn't.
For example the Texas ID law exempts registered gun owners and senior citizens from the ID requirement. Hmmmm I wonder how these folks tend to vote?
No it doesn't. It allows gun owners with concealed carry permits to show their concealed carry permit and seniors to show the ID they use for Medicare. The Texas concealed carry permit shows your name, picture, physical description, date of birth, current address, and unique identification number; to get one you need (among other things) a Social Security number, a driver’s license, employment and residential history, a working email, and a major credit card. In other words, it establishes the hell out of who you are.
I don't have the specifics in front of me for the Medicare ID card, but I'm sure it works the same way.
Also, Texas will issue you a State Identification Card that is valid for voting free of charge. You have to be a citizen and it will show your address (so you can't vote in another district) but the card is free.
Showing ID requires ID. When the state will give you an ID card for free, then it will no longer be a poll tax. Until then, it is a de facto poll tax, even if that poll tax is $20 every 4 years or some other small number.
Most states offer a free "non-driver ID" for this exact reason. Especially states that would pass a Voter ID law. Being able to get a free state issued ID (that would be valid for voting) is the norm in this country, not the exception. The problem is with the millions of American non-citizens who are also unable to get IDs. That and the millions of Americans who want to vote in a place they don't actually live in.
If Apple wanted to support cut and paste, they would add a right mouse button.
By definition, anyone who is an illegal immigrant has committed at least one crime. Otherwise, they wouldn't be illegal immigrants, now would they?
It's a full Android system, with all the access to the App Markets that that implies. I'm not sure if there are compilers and IDEs on the App Market, but things like Python are there. I wouldn't try to program on it because of how small the keyboard is, but I wouldn't program on a netbook for the same reason.
So touch screen netbooks are most likely next. Combine the best features of both.
Check out the Asus Transformer. For $550, it's a 16 GB Android tablet with a keyboard/trackpad that attaches to it and folds over the entire screen. (Note that the keyboard is a separate piece than the tablet proper, and $550 is the cost for both pieces together.)
That's not what the law says.
The leaked e-mails include an incident where a car was impounded because his ID was suspected to be a fraudulent Mexican driver's license.
You're allowed to drive in US border states with a valid Mexican license, as long as you leave when your permission to be here expires. Having a problem with a suspected fraudulent license is different from an immigration issue, no matter who issued the license.
Since we should already be asking people for their legal address when they get arrested or get a citation, it's not that great a leap to check immigration status for people who are here legally. It should only cause problems for illegals, which is, of course, the point.
Right, because all illegal immigrants commit crimes.
Of course. Every single one. If not, they wouldn't be illegal, now would they?