NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

[jimnyc]

I find it interesting that those so vehemently opposed to voter ID never have an issue with the TONS of other services and such that also require the same. I suppose it's ok to ask for ID when it won't make a difference in the outcome of an election.

Show proof that you have health insurance, but just say who you are at the voter polls and they'll take your word for it!


Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP Nation Convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. What did media need in order to attend? That's right, government issued photo identification (and a second form of identification too!), something both Holder and the NAACP stand firmly against when it comes to voting. Holder's DOJ is currently suing Texas for "discriminatory" voter ID laws. From the press release:

All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials. Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials at http://action.naacp.org/page/s/registration. For security purposes, media check-in and equipment set up must be completed by 7:45 a.m. CDT for an 8:00 a.m. CDT security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed, additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit.

Ironically, NAACP President Ben Jealous railed against voter ID just before Holder took the stage.

The head of the NAACP on Monday likened the group's fight against conservative-backed voter ID laws that have been passed in several states to the great civil rights battles of the 1960s.

Benjamin Todd Jealous, the CEO and president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said these are "Selma and Montgomery times," referring to historic Alabama civil rights confrontations. He challenged those attending the NAACP's annual convention to redouble their efforts to get out the vote in November.

"We must overwhelm the rising tide of voting suppression with the high tide of registration and mobilization and motivation and protection," he said.

"Simply put, the NAACP will never stand by as any state tries to encode discrimination into law," Jealous said.

Talk about hypocrisy!!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

[ConHog]

I find it interesting that those so vehemently opposed to voter ID never have an issue with the TONS of other services and such that also require the same. I suppose it's ok to ask for ID when it won't make a difference in the outcome of an election.

Show proof that you have health insurance, but just say who you are at the voter polls and they'll take your word for it!



Talk about hypocrisy!!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/10/naacp_requires_photo_id_to_see_holder_speak

Surely you agree that what a private organization does is different than what the government does? Now, I happen to agree that ID should be required to vote; but I don't see hypocrisy here. On the one hand they require ID for safety concerns, and on the other hand you would be hard pressed to say that providing ID at a voting boot presents some sort of safety measure.

Otherwise , you COULD make a claim that the government is being hypocritical when they require ID to fly, because ID is required to fly only for safety reasons, not as some measure to make sure non citizens can't fly.

[jimnyc]

Surely you agree that what a private organization does is different than what the government does? Now, I happen to agree that ID should be required to vote; but I don't see hypocrisy here. On the one hand they require ID for safety concerns, and on the other hand you would be hard pressed to say that providing ID at a voting boot presents some sort of safety measure.

Otherwise , you COULD make a claim that the government is being hypocritical when they require ID to fly, because ID is required to fly only for safety reasons, not as some measure to make sure non citizens can't fly.

They want ID for assurance purposes. No different than a liquor store wanting ID, to have assurance you are over 21. These people want safety assurances. The IRS does so for assurance of identity due to the funding and privacy involved. Flying does so for safety reasons and to be assured you are who you claim to be. It's ALL about confirming that one is who he says he is. Saying one needs ID to confirm who they are is no different than one confirming who they are at a polling booth. Simply someone confirming and identity when you break it down. The burden disappears as soon as ID is confirmed. No such assurance is required for voting, which is arguably much more important than other things that require ID.

[ConHog]

They want ID for assurance purposes. No different than a liquor store wanting ID, to have assurance you are over 21. These people want safety assurances. The IRS does so for assurance of identity due to the funding and privacy involved. Flying does so for safety reasons and to be assured you are who you claim to be. It's ALL about confirming that one is who he says he is. Saying one needs ID to confirm who they are is no different than one confirming who they are at a polling booth. Simply someone confirming and identity when you break it down. The burden disappears as soon as ID is confirmed. No such assurance is required for voting, which is arguably much more important than other things that require ID.

I agree with you that we should be checking ID Jim, it's one of the more stupid things our government does. I just see no hypocrisy here. I'll be honest, I don't know is the NAACP even against voter ID, I'm sure they are since Obama is against it, but I still say that what a private organization does has nothing to do with what the government does.

[jimnyc]

I agree with you that we should be checking ID Jim, it's one of the more stupid things our government does. I just see no hypocrisy here. I'll be honest, I don't know is the NAACP even against voter ID, I'm sure they are since Obama is against it, but I still say that what a private organization does has nothing to do with what the government does.

It's a person stating ID is of importance in one breath, and not important in the next. Whether private or not, it's still hypocritical of that person to be for ID one minute and against it in the next. A person/entity can still be hypocritical on stances, even if one is private and on government.

[ConHog]

It's a person stating ID is of importance in one breath, and not important in the next. Whether private or not, it's still hypocritical of that person to be for ID one minute and against it in the next. A person/entity can still be hypocritical on stances, even if one is private and on government.

I don't see that they are against ID. I see that they wrongly suggest that requiring ID would be a hardship on some (I disagree with this, I think ID is easy to acquire)

Now I can see where they are going with that. You do NOT have a "right" to attend Holder's speech (and who would want to anyway) but you DO have a right to vote so impeding one by requiring ID is NOT the same as impeding the other. It simply is not.

Now a MUCH better case could be made that requiring ID to buy a gun , but not to vote is hypocrisy. Because both are required by the government, and both are rights.

[jimnyc]

We disagree, that's cool.

[ConHog]

We disagree, that's cool.

No skin off my nose. :2up:

[red state]

I don't see that they are against ID. I see that they wrongly suggest that requiring ID would be a hardship on some (I disagree with this, I think ID is easy to acquire)

Now I can see where they are going with that. You do NOT have a "right" to attend Holder's speech (and who would want to anyway) but you DO have a right to vote so impeding one by requiring ID is NOT the same as impeding the other. It simply is not.

Now a MUCH better case could be made that requiring ID to buy a gun , but not to vote is hypocrisy. Because both are required by the government, and both are rights.

So that this is/was not a one on one debate....I'd like to put my two cents worth in by saying there is a difference in voting and owning a gun. We have a privileged to vote but it is a govermental right/privilege to vote. Owning a gun is a GOD given right to protect oneself and one's loved ones. I look forward to others participating...it is too good a thread to not have so few to comment.

Bottom line...THEY are a bunch of hypocrits and liars and I don't see any honor in ANYTHING that THEY do. And by the way, the NAACP is against voter ID, just as they let Romney know that they are 110% for Obama Care by booing him. B.O. didn't even see fit to show up (when he gallivants around the world apologizing and playing golf) yet he can't show up at the NAACP meet up?! I bet he'd be there for a muSLUM event (especially one where he is adorned as, not only a muSLUM, but a high ranking muSLUM. FACT!