By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
killerzX said:
SamuelRSmith said:
enrageorange said:

A day doesn't go by where people don't make this stupid comparisions. This goes for both Republicans and Democrats. It's like saying the GOP wants to ban concealed weapons because they didn't allow concealed weapons in the actual convention.


I actually agree with your post. Just posting this link in reference to that line.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-bans-assault-weapons-2012-7

well actually. its not a very valid comparision. they arent pushing for any law banning conceal carry. and it is very consitant with the law. its private property, so they can choose what they want to allow are not. if they wanted to ban people from wearing red shirts they could do that. that doesnt mean they want to pass legislation banning red shirts.

but if requiring ID to vote is racist, then it doesnt magically become not racist when it comes to going into a convention. both would be racist.

Look, honestly, I don't care about the politics of it.  It's just that your comparison is inane.  Security and voting are two ENTIRELY different things.  One has to do with protecting the President of the United States and other members of government, and the other has to do with ... voting.  It's just a really meaningless comparison.  In fact, it's so bad that it hurts your credibility in terms of presenting a logical argument.  It's goofy and you shouldn't want people to associate you with goofy.

"Requiring ID to vote" =/= "going into a convention".  I'm sorry, but for you to have a point these things would have to even slightly equate to one another and they simply do not.  Well, not unless the place where you vote lets you mill around for three days and features many government VIPs.