so many on the right here are blatent racists
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
why are NO REPUBLICANS upset that their members include blatent racists
then fiegn insult when their party is properly labeled as the racists party?
because they like those voters and their money
without the racist vote the republican party would shrivel and die
Русский агент
Путин - мl
Evince spit? Buck Fuck certainly would have swallowed.
evince
Truthmatters
Shut up, rayciss skank.
Русский агент
Путин - мl
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And yet, you are unable to self motivate yourself and only do something when your publically shamed into it.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You've provided no proof that he was a drug dealer.
For all we know; you thought the poor guy was a Martian, at first, and only after the drugs wore off, did you realize what you had done.
Did you call the Police and report this "drug dealer"?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
When did around 6 years or less, become LIKE A DECADE??
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
In your first telling, this was never mentioned.
Then after posters began telling you how awful you were, you came up with the "story" of him GETTING READY TO SPIT ON YOU.
And your third rewrite had him spitting AT YOU.
We're all in anticipation of how your 4th release will read.
Русский агент
Путин - мl
Prove it.
Didn't the rayciss skank change her story after the fact?
Did the rayciss skank ever show any proof the black man she profiled and assaulted was a drug dealer?
Why would a so-called liberal DEFEND a rayciss skank like Evince?
Русский агент
Путин - мl
I think I have those quotes.
The rayciss skank's tall tale kept "evolving", didn't it?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Untrue; because everyone is giving you all the attention it deserves, by ignoring your lunacy and lies.
Unless someone is bored and then, you are fun to mock.
Русский агент
Путин - мl
evince
Truthmatters
What Does the Constitution Actually Say About Voting Rights?
Or, how the Shelby ruling is like starving a dog to death
Garrett Epps Aug 19, 2013 U.S.
Since the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder in June, conservative governments in the South and elsewhere have raced to introduce new voting restrictions. Most prominent in the attacks is the comprehensive vote-restriction law passed by the Republican majority in the North Carolina legislature. The law cuts back early voting, restricts private groups from conducting voter-registration drives, eliminates election-day voter registration, and imposes the strictest voter ID rules in the country. There is evidence that Republican legislatures elsewhere will follow North Carolina's lead.
Neither the American people nor the federal courts would tolerate restrictions of this sort if they were imposed on free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, or freedom to petition government for redress of grievances. For that matter, many Southern states--and probably a majority of the Supreme Court--would reject far less onerous restrictions on the right to "keep and bear arms." Yet each of those rights is mentioned only once in the Constitution. The "right to vote" is mentioned five times--and yet the Court has brushed it aside as a privilege that states may observe at their convenience. Even an overwhelming majority of Congress--which is given the power to enforce the right in no fewer than four different places in the Constitution--cannot protect this right more strongly than the Court feels appropriate.
Or, how the Shelby ruling is like starving a dog to death
Garrett Epps Aug 19, 2013 U.S.
Since the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder in June, conservative governments in the South and elsewhere have raced to introduce new voting restrictions. Most prominent in the attacks is the comprehensive vote-restriction law passed by the Republican majority in the North Carolina legislature. The law cuts back early voting, restricts private groups from conducting voter-registration drives, eliminates election-day voter registration, and imposes the strictest voter ID rules in the country. There is evidence that Republican legislatures elsewhere will follow North Carolina's lead.
Neither the American people nor the federal courts would tolerate restrictions of this sort if they were imposed on free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, or freedom to petition government for redress of grievances. For that matter, many Southern states--and probably a majority of the Supreme Court--would reject far less onerous restrictions on the right to "keep and bear arms." Yet each of those rights is mentioned only once in the Constitution. The "right to vote" is mentioned five times--and yet the Court has brushed it aside as a privilege that states may observe at their convenience. Even an overwhelming majority of Congress--which is given the power to enforce the right in no fewer than four different places in the Constitution--cannot protect this right more strongly than the Court feels appropriate.