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
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
116665 posts
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:22 am to
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 by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
481095 posts
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:29 am to
You're not answering the quesiton.

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 by Jbird
Shoot the tires out!
Member since Oct 2012
92152 posts
Posted on 7/26/26 at 10:31 am to
Irrelevant!

you are dishonest!

I won!

I am right again!

Listen to me people listen!
Posted by Wolfwireless
Member since Aug 2024
4951 posts
Posted on 7/26/26 at 11:22 am to
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.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram