- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Remember that whole thing about states have authority over elections and ID requirements?
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:22 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So what, exactly, was the "different perspective" to what I posted? What was this disagreement you're referencing, exactly?
I'll type this slowly so you can understand it...
1) Title of thread:
quote:
Remember that whole thing about states have authority over elections and ID requirements?
2) OP notes not the case with an X post identifying judge, law and ruling
3) SFP responds with a citation to an article saying the whole law wasn't declared unconstitutional - an argument/assertion not made or advanced in the thread title or OP
4) SFP was directed to the thread title and OP content with the notation that his posts confirmed them.
5) SFP admits he "reframed" the thread title and OP and by doing that, he's right because he has successfully refuted an argument that was never made.
So, what have we learned?
SFP is a clown.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:29 am to udtiger
You're not answering the quesiton.
I posted. You said this
Your response above (1st post on page 3) does not do any of the following:
Explain specifically the "different perspective" that you're referencing (with those words, not OP).
Explain what was this disagreement you're referencing, exactly (with those words, not OP).
You're pivoting to talking about OP, which has no relevance to my questions or your words I quoted.
See even in your summary, you're skipping the above-quoted words.
Between 3 and 4 was the crucial behavior being discussed.
You're missing the crucial step from which my questions flow. The questions still remain.
Don't double down on dishonesty.
Tripling down on dishonesty
It was made, by you, and is currently being ignored, by you. I quoted it for you (again) in this post.
I posted. You said this
quote:
Funny...
ACLU seems to disagree.
VICTORY: Court Declares NH Anti-Voter Law Unconstitutional - ACLU of New Hampshire LINK
Also, here's another "news story" about it:
Ahead of midterms, federal court strikes down NH proof-of-citizenship voter registration law • New Hampshire Bulletin LINK
And another...
Federal judge strikes down N.H. voter ID law; repeal of affidavits ruled unconstitutional - Concord Monitor LINK
All of them seem to have a different perspective to yours.
Your response above (1st post on page 3) does not do any of the following:
Explain specifically the "different perspective" that you're referencing (with those words, not OP).
Explain what was this disagreement you're referencing, exactly (with those words, not OP).
You're pivoting to talking about OP, which has no relevance to my questions or your words I quoted.
See even in your summary, you're skipping the above-quoted words.
quote:
3) SFP responds with a citation to an article saying the whole law wasn't declared unconstitutional - an argument/assertion not made or advanced in the thread title or OP
4) SFP was directed to the thread title and OP content with the notation that his posts confirmed them.
Between 3 and 4 was the crucial behavior being discussed.
You're missing the crucial step from which my questions flow. The questions still remain.
quote:
5) SFP admits he "reframed" the thread title and OP
Don't double down on dishonesty.
quote:
and by doing that, he's right
Tripling down on dishonesty
quote:
he has successfully refuted an argument that was never made.
It was made, by you, and is currently being ignored, by you. I quoted it for you (again) in this post.
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:31 am to SlowFlowPro
Irrelevant!
you are dishonest!
I won!
I am right again!
Listen to me people listen!
you are dishonest!
I won!
I am right again!
Listen to me people listen!
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:22 am to mtntiger
quote:
Only CITIZENS should vote. Proof of citizenship is easy to obtain if you don't already have it, and every state I've heard that requires ID offers free IDs to those who need them to vote.
NON-CITIZENS should never vote in ANY country's elections.
This.
Popular
Back to top


1





