I can’t wait to read your defense, Gent…
About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn’t have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary’s Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.
The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn’t get one but came to the precinct anyway.
“One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go do that,’” Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.
Defense, Pd?
If you read the entire article, pd, I really don’t think a defense is necessary. According to your article, things appeared to run rather smoothly tonight in Indiana. In fact, your article states that the “hotline” set up by groups opposed to the ID law received very few voter complaints today. For the first election with an ID requirement, it appears democracy in Indiana did not come to a standstill, as ID opponents had feared. As for the nuns, if I read the article correctly, it would seem that they knew about the law but chose to come to the polling place without a photo ID? I’m not sure I’m the one who needs the defense, pd…
A pitiful bleat
Not that I expected anything different from you. When these laws were passed, it was rightly pointed out they would discriminate against the poor and elderly and non-drivers. And, it turns out that was correct. I knew you would not care one whit if a 98 yr old in a wheelchair could vote or not. That’s just too bad if she couldn’t get out to get an ID.
Why don’t you drop a line to the convent and tell them exactly what you told all of us here at KP, that it’s just tough because they couldn’t abide by the law?
You know what? Like Jacob Marley, you are forging a long and ponderous chain for yourself.
pd
Nuns
Come on Pd, you can do better than that. I’m not here to defend the Gent, we all know he likes a good discussion/argument, but you’re trying to make something out of nothing.
Disenfranchisement is nothing?
Really? Disenfranchising voters is nothing? Would you like to go to a poll you’ve been at for years and told you can’t vote?
Pghtory thinks it’s aok for voters to be disenfranchised, so I expect him to be able to defend this odious practice when it occurs.
It took a helluva long time for non-property owning white males, women and blacks to get full voting rights in this country. I won’t cut anyone who thinks we should take a step backward and deny anyone the right to vote any slack.
pd
There Pd Goes Again...
Anonymous is right (on both counts, actually). I do love a great discussion/argument (which, unless we’re talking about drug legalization, pd seemingly cannot provide). On the second count, pd is trying to thread a blanket from two strands of string (or make something from nothing – choose your favorite analogy). Has anyone else noticed pd’s pattern, by the way? He (or she) levels a charge (racist, ageist, etc.), I’ll respond with facts, logical refutations, and serious questions. Pd’s comeback? A re-issue of the original charge. Anyway, as I read the article, one of the FEW actual complaints received by the state of Indiana yesterday involved the case of a group of nuns being turned away from their polling place after failing to produce a photo ID. Now, as I read the article, it appeared to me that the group of nuns KNEW of the new law, but chose to show up without one anyway. I don’t know about anyone else, but I would consider an “disenfranchised” individual one who fulfills all of their obligations in order to vote but is yet turned away for a totally different ( and/or unconstitutional) reason (i.e., the color of their skin). Also, pd’s article didn’t explain why the nuns didn’t return (or bring in the first place) with two of the dozens of acceptable forms of identification under the new Indiana law. Other than the nuns and a few other isolated cases, Indiana saw very few problems yesterday with the new law. Of course, all of this means little to pd, who really never seems to tire scolding “racist, backward conservatives” such as myself from the comfort of his/her gleaming ivory perch. Actually, I’ve concluded that if pd is calling me names, it’s more likely that not that I’m on the right side of the issue. Oh, by the way, pd, please don’t cut me any slack now or in the future. You wouldn’t want to go and ruin all my fun, now would you?
Disenfranchised Nuns
Anonymous here again Pd. For the record, I happen to be a Dem and on the rare occasion I find myself in agreement with the Gent. This is one of those occasions. Indiana has a voter ID law. What else needs to be said. There have been several past threads on KP regarding voter ID’s so I won’t open that can again, but the law is the law in this case. Also, for the record, I do believe disenfranchisement is something. This situation however is a matter of rules. Indiana requires a voter to an ID card, so the voter should have one if he or she expects to vote. I won’t even consider that this might have something to do with the voters being nuns. I’m relatively certain individuals are not exempt from laws based on religious affiliations or vocations.
Besides, who wants to deal with a bunch or rowdy 90 year old nuns. They were probably pushing and shoving and cutting the line.
FDR
It's a bad law
It may be the law, but that doesn’t make it good or right. For me, this is a black and white matter. Any law that disenfranchises even one voter is wrong. Period.
These nuns are a concrete example of why.
There’ll be no quarter from me to anyone who thinks disenfranchisement in any form is ok.
pd
Permitted ID Under Indiana Law
To clarify, here are the types of photo ID permitted:
Indiana’s Voter ID Law
Public Law 109-2005 requires Indiana residents to present photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day. The photo ID must meet 4 criteria to be acceptable for voting purposes. It must:
1. Display the voter’s photo 2. Display the voter’s name, and the name must conform with the voter registration record 3. Display an expiration date and either be current or have expired sometime after the date of the last General Election 4. Be issued by the State of Indiana or the U.S. governmentIf you do not have a photo ID that meets these requirements, then, in order to obtain a photo ID from Indiana, you must present:
If you are applying for a new driver license, identification card, learner permit, or driver education permit you must visit a license branch and present the following documents:
* One primary document; and * One secondary document; and * Proof of Social Security number or Social Security ineligibility; and * Proof of Indiana residency.OR
* One primary document; and * Proof of Social Security number or Social Security ineligibility; and * Proof of Indiana residency.A primary or secondary document may also meet the Indiana residency requirement as long as the document shows the applicant’s name and correct address.
Here is the list of acceptable primary documents:
Primary Group-acceptable United States documents:
* US Birth Certificate with authenticating stamp or seal containing the applicant’s date of birth, place of birth, and parent’s names issued by a county department or county board of health from the applicant’s state of birth, a state department or state board of health from the applicant’s state of birth, or a verified delayed birth certificate. * Certificate of Naturalization/Citizenship * Certification of report of birth (DS-1350) * U.S. consular report of birth (FS-240) * Birth certificate issued by United States territories, including American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands * U.S. Veterans Universal Access Identification card with photo * U.S. Military/Merchant Marines identification card with photo * U.S. PassportPrimary Group-acceptable immigration documents:
* Valid foreign passport with photo with a visa that includes a valid form I-94 indicating the authorized duration of stay in the United States * Valid foreign passport with a current visa that states “Upon Endorsement Serves as Temporary I-551 evidencing Permanent Residence for 1-year”NOTE: Canadian passports are not required to have a visa or a form I-94. Applicants from the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Republic of the Marshall Islands do not required to present a visa but must submit a form I-94. Passports with I-94 indicating F-1/F-2 status must provide a valid form I-20 (“Certificate of Eligibility”). For these applicants, the form I-20 serves as a secondary document. Passports with I-94 indicating J-1/J-2 status must be submitted with a valid form DS-2019 (“Certificate of Eligibility”). For these applicants, the form DS-2019 serves as a secondary document.
* Authorization for parole of an alien into the United States (form I-512) * Employment authorization card (I-688B) * Employment authorization card (I-766) * Form I-94 stamped with “Section 207” refugee status * Form I-94 Stamped with “Section 208” asylum status * Permanent resident card (I-551) * Temporary I-551 stamp/with passport or I-94 with alien number * Temporary Resident card (I-688) * Travel document (I-131) * An I-797 “Notice of Action” including an applicant’s “Approval Notice” may be used to extend the validity of an original primary document.So, now that you have read that list ...
tell me how likely it is that someone who does not a document that qualifies as a permissible photo ID would have a “primary document?”
Since We're Comparing Lists...
Acceptable forms of primary documentation (the COMPLETE LIST), from the Indiana SOS website:
Primary Group-acceptable United States documents:
* US Birth Certificate with authenticating stamp or seal containing the applicant’s date of birth, place of birth, and parent’s names issued by a county department or county board of health from the applicant’s state of birth, a state department or state board of health from the applicant’s state of birth, or a verified delayed birth certificate. * Certificate of Naturalization/Citizenship * Certification of report of birth (DS-1350) * U.S. consular report of birth (FS-240) * Birth certificate issued by United States territories, including American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands * U.S. Veterans Universal Access Identification card with photo * U.S. Military/Merchant Marines identification card with photo * U.S. PassportPrimary Group-acceptable immigration documents:
* Valid foreign passport with photo with a visa that includes a valid form I-94 indicating the authorized duration of stay in the United States * Valid foreign passport with a current visa that states “Upon Endorsement Serves as Temporary I-551 evidencing Permanent Residence for 1-year”NOTE: Canadian passports are not required to have a visa or a form I-94. Applicants from the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Republic of the Marshall Islands do not required to present a visa but must submit a form I-94. Passports with I-94 indicating F-1/F-2 status must provide a valid form I-20 (“Certificate of Eligibility”). For these applicants, the form I-20 serves as a secondary document. Passports with I-94 indicating J-1/J-2 status must be submitted with a valid form DS-2019 (“Certificate of Eligibility”). For these applicants, the form DS-2019 serves as a secondary document.
* Authorization for parole of an alien into the United States (form I-512) * Employment authorization card (I-688B) * Employment authorization card (I-766) * Form I-94 stamped with “Section 207” refugee status * Form I-94 Stamped with “Section 208” asylum status * Permanent resident card (I-551) * Temporary I-551 stamp/with passport or I-94 with alien number * Temporary Resident card (I-688) * Travel document (I-131) * An I-797 “Notice of Action” including an applicant’s “Approval Notice” may be used to extend the validity of an original primary document.You’re telling me that the documents here are few and far between, blackrobe? I didn’t even bother to post the secondary documents, but would be more than glad to, if you wish.
My list was taken from the Indiana website ...
I fail to see the difference, but I’ll try it again, this time with quotation marks.
ACCEPTABLE PHOTO ID
“Public Law 109-2005 requires Indiana residents to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day.
Your photo ID must meet 4 criteria to be acceptable for voting purposes. It Must:
1. Display your photo
2. Display your name, and the name must conform to your voter registration record. Conform does not mean identical. Below are examples of names that would conform to “Robert John Crew” (examples deleted)
3. Display an expiration date and either be current or have expired sometime after the date of the last General Election (November 7, 2006)
* Including Military IDs with expiration does of “INDEF”4. Be issued by the State of Indiana or the U.S. government”
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ID THAT MEETS THESE REQUIREMENTS, YOU CAN GET GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ID.
“If you are applying for a new driver license, identification card, learner permit, or driver education permit you must visit a license branch and present the following documents:
* One primary document; and * One secondary document; and * Proof of Social Security number or Social Security ineligibility; and * Proof of Indiana residency.OR
* One primary document; and * Proof of Social Security number or Social Security ineligibility; and * Proof of Indiana residency.A primary or secondary document may also meet the Indiana residency requirement as long as the document shows the applicant’s name and correct address.”
HERE IS THE LIST OF ACCEPTABLE PRIMARY DOCUMENTS:
“Primary Group-acceptable United States documents:
• US Birth Certificate with authenticating stamp or seal containing the applicant’s date of birth, place of birth, and parent’s names issued by a county department or county board of health from the applicant’s state of birth, a state department or state board of health from the applicant’s state of birth, or a verified delayed birth certificate.
• Certificate of Naturalization/Citizenship
• Certification of report of birth (DS-1350)
• U.S. consular report of birth (FS-240)
• Birth certificate issued by United States territories, including American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands
• U.S. Veterans Universal Access Identification card with photo
• U.S. Military/Merchant Marines identification card with photo
• U.S. Passport
Primary Group-acceptable immigration documents:
• Valid foreign passport with photo with a visa that includes a valid form I-94 indicating the authorized duration of stay in the United States
• Valid foreign passport with a current visa that states ‘Upon Endorsement Serves as Temporary I-551 evidencing Permanent Residence for 1-year’”
One More Thing...
It would appear that 99.99% of Indiana residents have some type of primary documentation, as things went off pretty much without a hitch yesterday (well, aside from the nuns, of course…)
Did it ever occur to you ...
that registered voters without photo ID that met all the requirements stayed home?
And, yes, that means old people who stopped driving and therefore do not have a photo ID that meets the date requirement of Indiana’s law.
And you are truly living on another planet if you think that almost all people have the types of primary documentation listed on the Indiana website.
Have you ever tried to get a copy of your birth certificate? Have you tried to do it if you now live in state B but were born in state A? It takes money and time, something poor people tend not to have.
Hard Evidence, Please?
In an election year that is drawing millions of new voters to the polls, what hard evidence do you have that turnout in Indiana has hampered by the new law? If you believe voters stayed home because of the ID requirements, fine, but that’s simply your theory, not fact. All actual hard evidence and on-the-ground reporting from Indiana indicates that problems with the new law were virtually non-existent Tuesday (well, again, aside from the “nuns on a rampage”, as Pilt put it).
Blackrobe, you keep harping on the birth certificate requirement as if it’s the “be-all, end-all” in the Indiana law. If you actually read the Indiana law, Indiana residents who don’t have a copy of their birth certificate can bring any item from the “primary” document (and/or a “secondary” document) and receive their free ID. These are items (Medicare/Medicaid card, work authorization card, Vet’s Access card, etc., among others), of course, that you believe many Indiana residents simply don’t possess. As I posted last week, if thousands of people are running around Hoosier-land with absolutely no documentation as to who they are, I’d say Indiana has a much bigger problem on their hands than voting issues.
Gee, Gent, and All This Time I Thought You Could Read
Once again, here is what it takes to get a government-issued photo ID in Indiana. Think of it like an old-fashioned menu in an old-fashioned Chinese restaurant, one from column A, one from column B. Notice the word “and” in the requirements. It means that you must have all these documents.
You still have to have a primary document, Medicaid cards, et al., do not qualify as primary documents under the law. They are secondary documents.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ID THAT MEETS THESE REQUIREMENTS, YOU CAN GET GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ID.
“If you are applying for a new driver license, identification card, learner permit, or driver education permit you must visit a license branch and present the following documents:
OR
A primary or secondary document may also meet the Indiana residency requirement as long as the document shows the applicant’s name and correct address.”
Reading 101
Apparently we read differently, Blackrobe. See, when I read something, I read the ENTIRE document, not just the parts that I intend to use to construct my argument. In the case of individuals who do not have their birth certificate, this is the law in the state of Indiana:
How do I get a driver license or ID card if I don’t have a birth certificate?
In most cases, to obtain a photo ID you would need to supply a U.S. Birth Certificate. However, Individuals who are 65 years or older, and attest that they have never been issued a Birth Certificate because their birth was never recorded with any State Office of Vital Statistics, may present other forms of identification as a primary document, along with the secondary document, for an Indiana driver license or identification card.
Individuals who are 65 years or older may present, as primary documents:
* Medicaid/medicare Card * Social Security Benefits Statement * Property Deed * Property Tax Statement * Bank Statements * US Veteran’s Access Photo ID Card * Marriage/Divorce Decree * Pension StatementPlease not that Secondary Documents, and other documents proving residency, are still required for most transactions. For more information on acceptable documents of identification, please consult the Indiana Identification Documentation List
Those individuals who are younger then 65 years of age but who do not have an original copy of their birth certificate may:
* bring another document from the Primary Group such as a U.S. passport or a Veteran’s identification card, * or they may contact the health department or department of vital statistics in their county or state of birth to obtain a new copy of their original birth certificate.In cases where individuals older than 65 do not have birth certificates, Medicaid cards do indeed qualify as primary documents under the law (along with bank and pension statements, for example). Those under 65 can present Veteran’s cards as primary documentation, among many other things. It’s called “reading comprehensively”, my friend.
Purpose
I propose we get back to the real purpose of KP. To discuss and debate the issues of the day. So ponder this one: Of Gent or Blackrobe; which is the bigger douche bag?
Grow up, anonymous
Nobody is forcing you to read the discussion between the Gent and me, or to read KP at all.
So, please, go back to your cave and be careful not to drag your knuckles on the way.
We have a winner
I knew it would be the blackrobe. The Gent would not take the time to type a reply. You see BR, that’s why you always come up on the short end of discussions. You have nothing of value to say, so you throw some worhless babble out there to get a rise out of the Gent. Everyone of your posts is a direct challenge for the Gent. Nothing anyone else on KP cares to read. If you prefer others not read your posts, you should consider a more private forum.
Severeal weeks ago I
Severeal weeks ago I suggested an exchange of email addresses between Gent and Blackrobe, just to clear the blog for a more community discussion.
Who made you the police of KP?
Really?
I ignored you post a few weeks ago, but this time I responded because of the unnecessary use of the word “douchebag.” See, when someone doesn’t have anything productive or intelligent to say, they resort to name-calling.
So, anonymous, if you really think you have something to contribute to KP, why don’t you become a regular contributor and not hide behind your anonymity?
The Gent - Ignoring reality
A national survey conducted in 2006 by Opinion Research Corporation showed the following percentage of US-born adults age 18 or older did not have a passport or birth certificate.
income under $25K – 8.1%
income over $25K – 4.6%
African American – 8.9%
White – 5.5%
18-64 years old – 5.1%
65 or older – 7.4%
Did not graduate high school – 9.2%
Graduated high school – 5.1%
Blackrobe, Ignoring...Well, Everything...
That is a fine piece of polling you managed to produce, Blackrobe, but I truly fail to see the relevance between the percentage of U.S.-born adults age 18 or older who do not have birth certificates and the laws of the state of Indiana concerning the procurement of photo IDs by Indiana residents who do not possess their original birth certificates. It’s apples and oranges (or dogs and cats…or nuns and my third-grade self…). Point is, they simply don’t mesh (worked a nun reference in for you, Pilt). Anyway, back to my friend Blackrobe. You completely avoided the portion of the law that allows for Hoosiers who don’t have their birth certificates to receive a free photo ID. Was this an mere oversight on your part? Then you reply to my post with a national poll concerning birth certificates?! Here’s my last word on this (then, for the sake of the sanity of our fellow KPers – and my own, frankly – we should probably close this thread out, Blackrobe). The Indiana ID law is constitutional and not discriminatory. Is it an inconvenience for some to have to get a bus or cab ride to an ID center? Perhaps. However, the ID is free and (despite your strong suggestions to the contrary) fairly easy to obtain. This is an extremely small price to pay for Indiana to protect the integrity of their elections. Despite the saga of the nuns last Tuesday, there were virtually no issues with the new IDs on Primary Day in Indiana, and I would suggest you won’t see many arise in the future. Pilt made a good point in an earlier post that I’ll close with. Disenfranchisement is indeed real. People were DENIED their right to vote based upon the color of their skin for years in this country. Some say slavery is America’s “original sin”, but the denial of civil rights (such as the franchise) in the years after the Civil War should be viewed as an equally egregious offense. To suggest that the state of Indiana is engaging in behavior that could even be remotely similar to the “denial of civil rights” is absurd. If an individual does not have the means to vote (i.e., a photo ID), the state is PROVIDING them the means, not taking it away (i.e., disenfranchisement). Think about it.
OK, here are my last comments on the matter
The stats addressed birth certificates and passports (passports being one of the other forms of acceptable primary id).
Unless a person younger than 65 is a veteran, he or she is no more likely to possess the other acceptable forms of primary ID than they are to possess a birth certificate that is an “original cop(y) issued by the health department or department of vital statistics in the applicant’s county or state of birth. Birth certificates issued by hospitals or other organizations will not be accepted.”
Contrary to your assertion, the list of other primary documents is not exhaustive. Five of the eight are some kind of birth certificate, two are military, one is a passport and the final is a certificate of naturalization.
The cost, in time and money, of obtaining the required primary identification needed to get the Indiana-issued ID is not an “extremely small price to pay” for people to exercise the right to vote.
You want statistical evidence that people did not show up to the polls because of the voter ID law. Just because a lot of people showed up to vote because it was a high-interest election does not prove that people stayed home because of the ID requirement. I want statistical evidence that the “problem” the voter ID law was designed to address (in-person voter fraud) actually exists. While there may be a perception that there is a problem with in-person voter fraud (largely because of hysterical rants by people like John Fund), there is no hard evidence that it exists. Again, the evidence shows that absentee ballots are much more subject to fraud.
Indiana ID
Blackrobe appears to be taking this personally. Why be so hell-bent on arguing this. Indiana residents should know what documents, ID cards, certificates or whatever else may be needed to vote, drive, buy booze, or undertake any other activity in the state. If an idividual, elderly, poor or otherwise have transportation to their polling place, they should be able to get to the place that has the Photo ID. I have elderly parents that no longer drive. When they need to get someplace, they either walk when possible or call my brother or myself for a ride. I don’t know anyone who enjoys hanging around the DMV for their drivers license, but if they want to drive, they have to get the license. We can’t go through life not doing things because of inconvenience.
Everyone's like you, right?
I’m happy your parents can still walk and you and your sibling are willing to chauffeur them when needed. A lot of people aren’t that lucky. I find the arrogance and smugness of posts such as yours stunning.
pd
Smug?
Just making a point. I realize not everyone has transportation readily available, but if they can find a way to the polls, they may be able to find a way to get a photo id or whatever is needed. Indiana, like many states, have provisions for invalids and shut-ins to cast a ballot. If someone is so shut-in they cannot aquire any type of assistance or transportation, perhaps voting is not even one of their priorities. I appreciate your passion for this argument and I agree Indiana’s laws need some tweeking, but not all voting methods are perfect. Remeber the infamous hanging chads!
Not taking this personally
I’m just upset by the cynical efforts of Republicans to suppress the poor and minority vote under the mantel of protecting the integrity of the voting process. Under HAVA (the Help America Vote Act), first-time voters have to present certain forms of ID (photo and non-photo) in order to vote for the first time. My question to Republicans is, why not just extend the HAVA ID requirements to all voters?
The Indiana legislature, but requiring all voters to present government-issued photo ID that cannot be expired, etc., and by requiring individuals who want to obtain government issued-photo ID to present a birth certificate or the equivalent, is erecting significant barriers to individuals who do not have the time, the money or the savvy to negotiate the bureaucratic maze it takes to get such documentation. I can tell you from personally experience that it takes numerous phone calls, about $30 and several weeks to get a copy of one’s birth certificate, (especially from another state).
-blackrobe
Nuns on a rampage!
Just needed to say that…
Disenfranchisement is real…but this clearly isn’t the strongest argument against it.
While I am a liberal Democrat, I do feel that people need to take personal responsibility for things, including voting. The nuns need to play by the rules, just like everyone else. No question there.
But, the reality is that laws which seek to validate people before they vote have historically been used to disenfranchise huge swaths of citizens. No one can argue that. Poll taxes were used to that end and, many people believe the modern voter ID laws are an updated version. I tend to agree.
The GOP doesn’t care what the long term outcome of a lot of laws and regulations are; they want votes to go their way NOW. They’ll maneuver and scam and do what they can to limit Democratic voter involvement; that’s just the way they do business.
So while a few nuns don’t ultimately mean much, their case shouldn’t obviate the reality that many people, concerned about their “status” probably didn’t vote…and we never heard a word about it….
Pilt
ps: Funny how “smaller government” proponents seem just fine with these sorts of “intrusions” into our lives…..
They do matter
Pilt, although I agree with most of you wrote, I’m surprised you’d say these nuns don’t matter in the larger picture. Of course they matter. I don’t know how many registered voters there are in the US, but if even one of them is disenfranchised, it’s one too many. I don’t know what else to say except this is just wrong.
pd
How precisely can you parse my words?
For god’s sake, lighten up.
What I said was, “a few nuns don’t ultimately mean much….”
I stand by that. And, after all, it’s a rhetorical conceit, not a statement of pure fact.
The recent spate of petty bickering here is making this forum a less user-friendly place to post. I know I can choose to leave, post or not, but I don’t need this sort of holier-than-thou crap.
Pilt With An Attitude Today
Nuns Matter
PD, you can spin this any way you like, but this is not disenfranchisement. In PA you have to be registered to vote. If I choose not to register and then show up at the polls expecting to be allowed to vote only to be turned away, I have not been disenfranchised. If you don’t follow the rules, however you may feel about them, you are not allowed to vote.
They were registerd to vote
These nuns were registered to vote. They were denied a ballot because they did not have the requisite ID. That, my friend, is disenfranchisement. But you go ahead and believe it’s not.
pd
And to this statement....
They are nuns. They live by a strict code and many rules. They should have done so here.
Like I said earlier, this shouldn’t be your test case….because what you are essentially saying is that ANYONE who doesn’t have the correct ID was disenfranchised and I just don’t think that’s true. Someone who is too lazy or inept isn’t in the same “class” as someone who perhaps, by dint of education or life experience is just clueless about the rules.
Pilt WIth His Last Post About Nuns. Ever.
On the Contrary, Pilt...
Actually, Pilt, I’m quite a fan of your “nun” posts. Please keep them coming…
Post new comment