Do we really have to keep arguing in circles?

What does it mean when the opposition keeps making the same arguments, even when they've been refuted over and over, ad nauseum?

What a silly question. It means you're conservative, and your opponents are liberal.

Yes, I'm as tired of arguing over voter ID as everybody else. And yet, I just can't help myself. Not when Robert Miranda insists on making all the same, tired, oft-refuted arguments in his latest column.

Oh, the horror. Disenfranchisement. Republican plot. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Yawn.

I almost managed to ignore it, but then my eye fell on this:

"Voter ID is nothing more than a political action campaign against the people's ability to do the right thing. The GOP does not trust us. They do not believe that more Americans than not are willing and ready to abide by the law."

This is so very beside the point. Everybody thinks more Americans abide by the law than not. But the few who don't are committing theft against those who are.

Fraudulent voting is not a victimless crime. When one person votes fraudulently, a legitimate voter's vote is nullified. That voter is, in effect, disenfranchised.

Sure, we can investigate and prosecute. But by the time that's all done, the election itself is moot. The votes - including the fraudulently-cast ones - have been counted. The results have been certified. The winners - whether or not they should have been the winners - have been sworn in.

Prosecuting after-the-fact is too late.

Will Miranda address these points? Doubtful. If he's still hawking the same tired old arguments - arguments that do little but secure his standing as a leftist among leftists - he'll still be making them next week. I'm just wasting electrons, here.

Oh, well. I feel better, at least.

UPDATE - I called Robert Miranda by the wrong name - Richard - in the original post. Now corrected, and thanks to Wendy, whose friendly reminder proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is the flower of ladylike decorum.