so many on the right here are blatent racists

Godless America said:
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?
Click to expand...

YEAH, she's changed it at least 3 times now and there's been no proof that this poor guy was a drug dealer.
The reason they defend her; is because they have to close ranks, to stop from losing any political supporters.

Odd how she "says" that she chased off two drug dealers and they just willingly gave up their "sales spot".
Don't we hear about people getting shot, for less?
 
evince said:
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.
Click to expand...

why does the racist republican party fight to keep Americans from voting?
 
evince said:
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.
Click to expand...

RUN DESH, RUN; because your lies are being exposed, LIAR.

:truestory:
 
evince said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...tion-actually-say-about-voting-rights/278782/
Click to expand...

In the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote is not to be "denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Note the second verb. Many things might "abridge" a right without "denying" it altogether. Whatever the status of the right as a right, it is apparently quite strictly protected from any kind of limit--any kind of limit, that is, based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The target is clear--racial restrictions on voting, or restrictions of the voting rights of former slaves. It is commonplace, thus, to describe the amendment as aimed solely at racial restrictions on the right to vote.
 
evince said:
why does the racist republican party fight to keep Americans from voting?
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that this thread was about voting rights; but I can see how the discussion about your lies, would make you uncomfortable and cause you to try and change the subject. :D
 
evince said:
In the Fifteenth Amendment, the right to vote is not to be "denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Note the second verb. Many things might "abridge" a right without "denying" it altogether. Whatever the status of the right as a right, it is apparently quite strictly protected from any kind of limit--any kind of limit, that is, based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The target is clear--racial restrictions on voting, or restrictions of the voting rights of former slaves. It is commonplace, thus, to describe the amendment as aimed solely at racial restrictions on the right to vote.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that this thread was about what you're trying to divert it too; but I can see how the discussion about your lies, would make you uncomfortable and cause you to try and change the subject. :palm:
 
evince said:
go get the post of mine you claim exists and a link to it. You guys make posts up No link means its bullshit
Click to expand...


Here you go, rayciss skank:

evince said:
I spit in the face of the black guy.
Click to expand...

evince said:
One I sprayed with my hose the other tried to spit in my face so I hocked a good one in his face.
Click to expand...



No mention of your black victim trying to spit in your face back in 2013 when you bragged about your rayciss assault on a black man, is there?

Your story is "evolving".
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I wasn't aware that this thread was about what you're trying to divert it too; but I can see how the discussion about your lies, would make you uncomfortable and cause you to try and change the subject.
Click to expand...

Did she "forget" to mention that her black victim was "trying" to spit in her face back in 2013 when she bragged about her rayciss assault on a black man?
 
evince said:
because they cant win with ideas
Click to expand...

You've been linked, rayciss. Your story changed.

Are you asking me to believe that in 2013 you "forgot" to claim that anyone "was trying to spit" in your face when you made your boast post?

Now you're claiming that your filthy rayciss assault was justified by making up some shit years later.

You disgust me, lying skank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top