The hammer is coming down on the Dinos

I talk to people about it where ever I can.

you would think a political chats site would be a reasonable place to talk about it.

somehow you people just keep trying ways to avoid discussing the facts


why?
 
cawacko said:
So you have no examples of me lying you are simply projecting.[/QUOwhy cant you answer that question yes or no?


because you know the answer is yes but your too dishonest to claim it.

if you say no your caught in a direct lie.

Not answering still shows who you are
Click to expand...
 
"I'm trying to get you to stop lying"

Your statement indicates I've been lying before. Any particular examples come to mind?
 
evince said:
yes and then there are all the people who view without posting.


This is the best place of anywhere on earth to talk to people about politics.


you guys want to turn it into games instead.


I don't want games


I want to solve this countries problems and that starts by getting the truth out as best as I can.
Click to expand...

How is an actual debate a 'game'?

While some of the topics last time were silly (ie... cats vs. dogs)... some of them were very good topics. Those topics then led to people starting threads to discuss them after the debate had occurred.

I know you want to continue with your normal hate filled, unsubstantiated bullshit, but some of us actually like to debate the topics at hand in todays world. Some of us aren't filled with the hate that consumes you.
 
so you too deny the moutains of court documented evidence doesn't exist to prove the republican party has cheated in elections for decades?
 
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-10-25/news/mn-7435_1_republican-national-committee


court documented





GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down'

October 25, 1986|From the Washington Post




NEWARK, N.J. — A Republican National Committee official calculated that a so-called ballot security program in Louisiana "could keep the black vote down considerably," according to documents released in federal court Friday.

The documents and court hearing were the latest developments in a controversy over the GOP's ballot program that Democrats maintain is aimed at reducing minority turnout. The Republicans say the program's sole purpose is to purge ineligible voters from voting roles.
 
http://personalliberty.com/2009/12/...d-voter-intimidation-consent-decree-19493836/




COURT documented



Judge Denies Republicans' Effort To End Voter Intimidation Consent Decree


December 9, 2009 by Personal Liberty News Desk

Judge denies Republicans' effort to end voter intimidation consent decreeLast week, a federal judge in New Jersey rejected an attempt by the Republican National Committee (RNC) to dissolve a 27-year-old court order that is intended to prevent the intimidation of minority voters.

Stemming from a lawsuit brought forth by the Democratic National Committee in 1982, a consent decree was agreed upon which forced the RNC to gain court approval to use certain election tactics, including the creation of voter challenge lists, photographing voters at the polls and posting off-duty police at voting locations in minority neighborhoods, according to The New York Times.
 
evince said:
tell me one lie from me
Click to expand...

You're a strong supporter of traditional families?

You spent two hours staring at a toaster oven waiting for Designing Women to start because you were too stupid to realize that you weren't in your bedroom with your tv with the posters of CHE and the Zap on your walls?

..... that's one out of two.
 
Howey said:
The Voting Rights Act of 1964 (still mostly intact) was the direct result of voting fraud that hurt minorities. I don't believe Desh ever mentioned a political party, but in these days those affected are mostly Democrats. If you'd like to produce Democrat-introduced legislation that prevents Republicans from voting, I'd be more than happy to review it.
Click to expand...

I agree that a discussion of voter fraud from 1950s, 1960s isn't all that relevant today, except in terms of pointing out the tactics used then and then comparing them to today's tactics.

Aside from Hillary Clinton trying to move voting machines in the Nevada primary, I haven't heard of any democratic efforts to suppress voting; and she was mainly trying to keep casino workers from voting; it wasn't directed against poor people, black people or even republicans. Still wrong, of course.

The North Carolina rules are pretty bad. Proposed by Repubs
http://www.wral.com/senate-backs-sweeping-elections-bill/12699232/

Democrats blasted the bill, which cuts the early voting period from 17 to 10 days, prohibits counties from extending early voting hours on the Saturday before Election Day to accommodate crowds and eliminates same-day voter registration during early voting.

An attempt to retain the 17-day early voting period for presidential elections failed, even though Sen. Ben Clark, D-Cumberland, argued that a longer period would help military personnel, who sometimes have training activities that would make it difficult for them to get to a polling place.

Other provisions in the revamped bill include the following:

Eliminate pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, who currently can register to vote before they turn 18.
Outlaw paid voter registration drives.
Eliminate straight-ticket voting.
Eliminate provisional voting if someone shows up at the wrong precinct.
Prohibit counties from extending poll hours by one hour on Election Day in extraordinary circumstances, such as in response to long lines. Those in line at closing time would still be allowed to vote.
Allow any registered voter of a county to challenge the eligibility of a voter rather than just a voter of the precinct in which the suspect voter is registered.
Move the presidential primary to first Tuesday after South Carolina's primary if that state holds its primary before March 15. That would mean North Carolina would have two primaries during presidential elections.
Study electronic filing for campaign returns.
Increase the maximum allowed campaign contribution per election from $4,000 to $5,000.
Loosen disclosure requirements in campaign ads paid for by independent committees.
Repeal the publicly funded election program for appellate court judges.
Repeal the requirement that candidates endorse ads run by their campaigns.
Click to expand...


I really don't understand the last requirement -that I bolded. That's not voter suppression, but why wouldn't you keep the requirement that candidates endorse ads run by their own campaign?? Wow. Stupid.

Not all the requirements are about suppressing votes, but a lot of them will. And the others just are weakening the election system.
 
Here's my challenge to the GOP leaners here. Find one case just like Desh did where the Demo party got caught doing what the Republicans did in NJ. No one enters lightly into consent decrees. They do so because the writing is on the wall. Consent decree or federal prosecution. I am sure that with the amount of screaming from the right about the need for voter ID's and such all of you can come up with just oodles of cases where the dems were trying to keep little old ladies in Tempe from voting or some such evilz.
 
In my county in New Mexico, we no longer have precincts. We have voting stations. You walk in, give them your name and address where you are registered they had you the ballot from your district and you go vote. They never run out of ballots because they are all on a computer drive and if they are out they just print more.
 
Socrtease said:
Here's my challenge to the GOP leaners here. Find one case just like Desh did where the Demo party got caught doing what the Republicans did in NJ. No one enters lightly into consent decrees. They do so because the writing is on the wall. Consent decree or federal prosecution. I am sure that with the amount of screaming from the right about the need for voter ID's and such all of you can come up with just oodles of cases where the dems were trying to keep little old ladies in Tempe from voting or some such evilz.
Click to expand...

Just curious... but given the voter ID issue has been ongoing for decades... why not just get those little old ladies a friggin ID? They need it to open bank accounts, write a check, investment accounts etc... Why not just spend the money and get them the damn IDs?
 
Socrtease said:
In my county in New Mexico, we no longer have precincts. We have voting stations. You walk in, give them your name and address where you are registered they had you the ballot from your district and you go vote. They never run out of ballots because they are all on a computer drive and if they are out they just print more.
Click to expand...

That makes way too much sense. What, is your county run by commies??? (grin)

SF - why not just give up on the idea of pushing for voter id laws? Very little voter fraud happens at the polls.

Absentee ballots are much more likely place to look for voter fraud; and kicking people off the voter rolls right before elections for bogus reasons is ALSO a more likely place to look for fraud.
 
tekkychick said:
That makes way too much sense. What, is your county run by commies??? (grin)

SF - why not just give up on the idea of pushing for voter id laws? Very little voter fraud happens at the polls.

Absentee ballots are much more likely place to look for voter fraud; and kicking people off the voter rolls right before elections for bogus reasons is ALSO a more likely place to look for fraud.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with kicking people off the rolls right before an election. That said, why do we require IDs for anything else then? Why the adamant opposition from the left? These people need IDs for many other aspects of their everyday lives. Why not get them for them, then it we don't have to have this same argument over and over and over again. It will be done.
 
tekkychick said:
That makes way too much sense. What, is your county run by commies??? (grin)

SF - why not just give up on the idea of pushing for voter id laws? Very little voter fraud happens at the polls.

Absentee ballots are much more likely place to look for voter fraud; and kicking people off the voter rolls right before elections for bogus reasons is ALSO a more likely place to look for fraud.
Click to expand...

because he likes government waste

the government would have to provide them free
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top