I agree.  My thoughts on religion came about over years of consideration until I reached my conclusion on personally being an atheist.  However, if as I state that conclusion I am open to new evidence.  I hold no personal desire for reality to be the way I interpret it, I simply see it based on hundreds of debates I've had in my life and evidence I have found.

There are issues when asked my opinion I state "I don't know enough about this subject matter to form a strong view, I need to do research before commenting".  Then there is a period of fact finding and discussion as the view goes from weak to forming into a strong state backed by those experiences.  I think it is important to admit one's own ignorance first, and then do something about it. Being content in ignorance is far too common and can easily lead to being manipulated. 

Social media is a catch all term for platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.  I see a great deal from people parroting information that has no basis in reality.  Even when called out and shown how it is unequivocally false, they shut down and either ignore or insult shifting focus away. In regards to traditional media (print, television, etc.) I would say getting multiple sources is key as single source can warp how one sees the world. I personally am interested in foriegn sources as often have views that are never considered domestically.

I wonder who illegal immirants and convicted felons vote for the most... oh wait I do. Democrats.

How do you not see that question as a purposeful attempt to anger people. I see there for no other reason to anger minorities and further dividing people.

That is a textbook loaded question...

I don't think people against marijuana are just being emotional. They have real legitimate concerns about recreational drug use. I personally support at the very least decriminalization of using drugs.

I said if for any reaons its difficult for someone to get an ID, they should be assisted. Its just part of being a productive member of society kinda like forcing people to be in school.

If ACLU defends hate groups I bet its freedom of speech. I doubt ACLU supports what they actually say, which you're basically implying.

Again, if liberals can't support state IDs for voting they won't get behind national IDs for voting.  Especially if a significant number of minorities aren't making an effort to have them.

People who are against marijuana and have legitimate reaasons for it can voice those legitimate reasons. "Think of the children" isn't a legitimate reason. It's a reason to tug on the heartstrings of uninformed people. If we "thought of the children" for everything, we wouldn't have anything. Because you can OD on Tylenol. You can crash a car. You can catch a house on fire. At some point, some personal responsibility has to come into play. 

I'm glad you think that people who have trouble getting an ID should be assisted. But sadly, that isn't the reality. Republicans actively suppress the vote, as I've stated and provided proof of. Otherwise, when they enact laws that make only "certain kinds" of ID acceptable to vote, they would pass contingent laws to help people obtain them, that need help. But they don't do that. 

And yes, the ACLU does defend them for freedom of speech. They defend their right to say it, they don't defend the speech itself. They are the American Civil Liberties Union. They believe a National ID with biometric information would be a violation of privacy, which they believe affects people's civil liberties, hence why they are against it. But the ACLU isn't the Democratic party platform. The ACLU isn't even a part of Democratic leadership. So just because they are against it, but vote Democrat, it doesn't mean Democratic lawmakers are against a National ID. 

And liberals would total get behind a National ID for voting. Remember, the Democratic platform is to expand the list of acceptable forms of ID. Why would the be against another form of ID? It's not that Democrats "don't support state IDs for voting". As I pointed out before, they are opposed to "only certain kinds of ID being acceptable", and then those "certain kinds" are IDs that minorities and poor people typically don't have. That is the essence behind being against voter ID laws. Don't specify "state ID" as a basis for opposition (it's not). Focus on the "only these forms of ID that many minorities don't have is now a requirement for voting" as the basis for opposition. 

Are children not a concern when taking the legalization of marijuana into consideration? Generally speaking, I believe parents want their children to avoid pot. I'm an anti pot guy, I just don't want people getting into legal trouble for using it responsibly.

Again, you blame the republicans for people not making enough effort to get an ID. Your arguments are weak given states that require ID aren't putting crazy restrictions. Its basically just state ID and military, that's perfectly reasonable. I don't believe republicans feel a need to deter minorities from voting, I beleive many minorities just don't care enough to vote and believe they're in a country against their people. I say that as a minority that talks to minorities, left wing media has brain washed a lot of them in a very negative way.

Lets be frank, ACLU is significantly more left wing than right wing. If ACLU and other minority groups don't support National ID, then neither will many democrats. They will argue some sort of racial or financial disparity created by it, they always do. Dems don't even want us tracking illegals in fear they will be deported. They will call national ID fascism or something like that.

Are children not a concern regarding alcohol? Parents want their children to avoid alcohol. I'm not an anti-booze guy, I just don't want people getting into legal trouble for using it responsibly; see? Same argument. 

My arguments are not weak. I gave a perfect example of how even I, a person in a pretty good position, couldn't get an ID at first. Plus, it's more than just "restrictions" that make it hard. Location and hours matter as well. Like I said before, imagine someone who works 10-6 but the DMV closes at 5 and the closest one is 10 miles away and you rely on public transportation. They don't have a "white collar" job with flexible hours, so they're at the mercy of their boss. As I said before, there are factors that may not affect you, but they affect others.

Also, you again ignore proof that I provided. "I don't believe Republicans feel a need to deter minorities from voting".....then why are they studying breakdowns of IDs by race, then finding out which IDs minorities use the most often, then disqualifying that form as being valid for voting?

"In April 2013, a top aide to the Republican House speaker asked for 'a breakdown, by race, of those registered voters in your database that do not have a driver’s license number.'

Months later, the North Carolina legislature passed a law that cut a week of early voting, eliminated out-of-precinct voting and required voters to show specific types of photo ID — restrictions that election board data demonstrated would disproportionately affect African Americans and other minorities"

Oh yea, they also found out that many black voters prefer early voting, so they cut early voting hours. The proof is in the pudding. Stop denying it just because you "don't think Republicans have a reason". In this regard, it doesn't matter what you "think". I'm showing you evidence that they're doing the exact opposite of what you think.  

And yes, the ACLU is left wing. I'm not denying that. But just because one organization is left wing doesn't mean they represent the Democratic party platform. I don't understand why that is hard to understand. That's like saying the KKK is right wing, so they represent the Republican party. These things are not one in the same. Do you agree with every right wing organization? That's what your logic results in. If it's a right wing organization, then that must mean all Republicans are behind it.

And again, you ignore the proof that was placed right in your face. "Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information". Hell, that proposal was actually for immigration reform so that immigrants could be more easily known about. So your idea that "they don't even want to track illegals" is just made up nonsense. I will repeat, just because the ACLU is against something doesn't mean they represent the Democratic platform. Actually, you already mentioned that you're not anti-pot and you're for responsible use of marijuana. Well, there are right wing groups against marijuana. If right wing groups are against marijuana, then so are many Republicans, right. But you sound like you're a Republican. But you're not anti-pot! 

Do you see how that logic doesn't hold water?

I'm in agreement with all of that. A big thumbs up. :)

Legalize illegal immigrants who don't have any history of violent crime. Let them pay a fine and get them legal so they can start paying taxes. Nuff said. The overwhelming majority of these people are good, hard working people. Impliment tighter immigration laws for those who want to come in later, but those who are already here, legalize. Living in fear is not what America is about, these people don't want anything different than what immigrants from Ireland, UK, Germany, Italy, wanted 80 years ago, which is simply a better future for their kids. 

Voter ID should be free for everyone and easy to obtain. 

You should be able to vote if you've served your time. Why should you never be able to vote for example if you committed a felony at age 19 and are say 35 now? If you can get a job and are allowed to function in every other aspect of society, you should be able to vote. This is only a way to disenfranchise large portions of the population since the US locks up more people than other country on the planet. We have more people in jail than China despite having like a fraction of the population.

Oh and perhaps it's time to stop making jail a for-profit institution. We're paying tax dollars to make these companies running these prisons obscenely rich. And because they're rich of course there is strong motivation to make sure they are fully stocked, no one wants to fund a 1/3 full prison.  

Get all these political ideological bullshit out of the way. I think if presented on the basis of the *issues* most Americans could come to a fair consensus on a lot of these issues, they've just become so politicized that no common sense is allowed.