I strongly take issue with McFarland's criticism of Kennex's remark about the hacker/protesters. McFarland complains that the writing is confusing because it confused him, but the problem is the critics' and not with the script.

Not by shredding your weak arguments, no.

"At least you accept that there is no practical justification for this, and that it is an entirely political measure." - It's political to do voter ID before absentee. I'm not saying the law itself has no non-political justification, but that the ordering doesn't. The law is totally justified. Also, I said "political"…

"treated differently because of their race" ≠
"the % affected isn't the same in every race"

1) "You asserted that the argument is that non-white people are 'too stupid to secure photo identification.'" - No. stupiddimbulb said, "the racists hilariously claim that minorities are too stupid to secure photo identification."

"So how about dropping the argument that the laws are intentionally racist?…. Because laws that disproportionately affect the poor disproportionately affect non-white people."

"Getting photo ID costs money" - Except for the fact that they're issued for free in states with voter ID , that's an accurate statement…

"It's not a racial issue, it's an issue of poverty." - So how about dropping the argument that the laws are intentionally racist? One could argue that the poor are less likely to drive or need an ID for banking. Therefore the laws are unjust because they disproportionately inconvenience voters who are poor. The latter…

Connery, I appreciate the thoughtful reply. It's probably TL;DR, but here's my answer…

They are implicitly, just not explicitly. There's no other possible way to account for the claim that the voter ID laws target race.

John Paul Stevens is a liberal and he wrote the decision.

I know the guy you're talking about and he's an ass, but voter ID law is a positive thing to pass regardless of partisan effects. If DEM voters have a harder time with it that's the problem of your demographic not the law.

Your side is lying - or racists who're saying what they believe - if they think minorities are less able to comply with the law. Maybe the indignation is heartfelt, but if so it's because those who're indignant are dim witted. Based on your response I'm sure yours is heartfelt.

Voter ID laws were approved by the Sup Court with a liberal penned decision. Like a lot of Daily Show bits, this fact was "creatively omitted" for partisan effect.

PS: When you take the BS racism claims off the table, the real question is about whether it's unacceptable to add a procedure that introduces a small inconvenience in order to make the vote slightly more secure.
>One side says that any inconvenience is unacceptable unless it's necessary to combat major amounts of…

It's really sad for the country (and implicitly racist on the part of the left) that liberals have found it necessary to portray voter ID laws as a racial issue to stir up opposition and faux 'indignation.'

PS: 'Yes,' your turn.

It's not racist to claim that following directions will be a big problem for minorities compared to whites? Sounds like paradigmatic racism to me.