Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mythical? I know you're an idiotic loon, but even YOU must admit that a black guy dressed in camo swinging a billy club around in front of a polling place is likely to intimidate. Oh and for your knowledge the law doesn't require that anyone actually WAS intimidated, only that the actions COULD have intimidated someone.
Voter intimidation is a crime. The GOP is under a court ordered consent decree because the courts found that the GOP engaged in widespread voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP even argued that they have a constitutional right to intimidate voter.
The BP's are not under any such consent decree because they have never engaged in voter intimidation.
Wrong and wrong. It's just amazing how wrong you can be.
The consent decree deals with Republicans trying to clean up voter rolls by "caging." It has nothing to do with intimidation.
the court finds that there was intimidation particularly targetted at Native American voters
I can see however how you could mistake getting a letter in the mail asking you to prove your citizenship with intimidation.
I mean I know when I get letters in the mail I cower in the corner because they just intimidate me so much. Damn you citibank, stop your campaign of intimidation!!!!!!!! I don't want a credit card from you and your insistence on sending me these letters is just going to intimidate me into getting one. (sarcasm off)
Rick
I suppose you missed the post about how the GOP is THE ONLY PARTY that court of law has found to have engaged in voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.
You wanna go back and look at it, or would you rather continue pretending it didnt happen?
Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:
The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.
Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.
Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.
More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.
For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout | The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Those idiots think that tobacco is non-addicitve
Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:
The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.
Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.
Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.
More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.
For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout | The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Those idiots think that tobacco is non-addicitve
This is only fun when someone bites it big time: thats where you come in!
What an interesting and astute rebuttal to a statistical analysis....
glad to see you working to ability.
Could you point out a few of the inaccuracies in the analysis?
Or are you just plain wrong?
Was he swinging it? No. Also, I'll bet the GOP didn't approach any of their voters.
The GOP approaches people and asks them for ID and if they don't have it, they have to go get it. This guy wasn't doing any of that, he was standing there.
Not his problem that you all are scared of a Black man just standing there.
But, but, but....the black man was wearing scary military clothing, like this guy:
Tell the truth; That picture scared you, didnt it?
loosecannon is wrong, your not a wingnut.....your a blooming wingnut. A pathetic one at that.
Bet George had fun that day.Voter intimidation is a crime. The GOP is under a court ordered consent decree because the courts found that the GOP engaged in widespread voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP even argued that they have a constitutional right to intimidate voter.
The BP's are not under any such consent decree because they have never engaged in voter intimidation.
Wrong and wrong. It's just amazing how wrong you can be.
The consent decree deals with Republicans trying to clean up voter rolls by "caging." It has nothing to do with intimidation.
Liar. You don't even know which consent decree I'm referring to. The RNC is under several due to their pattern of criminal behavior.
I can see however how you could mistake getting a letter in the mail asking you to prove your citizenship with intimidation.
I said nothing about how getting a letter in the mail asking to prove my citizenship is intimidation. If you didn't make stuff up, you'd have nothing to say
I mean I know when I get letters in the mail I cower in the corner because they just intimidate me so much. Damn you citibank, stop your campaign of intimidation!!!!!!!! I don't want a credit card from you and your insistence on sending me these letters is just going to intimidate me into getting one. (sarcasm off)
Rick
I hope you turned the lying off along with the sarcasm.
It is rare that an individual reveal how truly inept they are in the areas of knowledge and debate as quickly as you have.
The very basis of modern liberalism is the denial of the Constitution...
1.The Progressives view of the direction that America should take began to gain prominence in the late 19th century-early 20th century. It was very different from America’s political traditions up to that point. Ms. Clinton described herself as a ‘modern progressive, of the beginning of the 20th century.
2. Progressives, i.e. John Dewey, co-opted the term liberal, but it was big government liberalism as opposed to the original (classical) meaning of liberalism.
3. These Progressives differed dramatically from earlier incarnations of this viewpoint in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism of the Constitution. This separation from earliest traditions was the backbone of the Progressive movement.
a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’
b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.
d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.
4. Frank Goodnow, “The American Conception of Liberty and Government,” a president of Johns Hopkins University, and pioneered with Woodrow Wilson a science of administration separated from the limits of constitutional government. In this essay, Goodnow both promotes the idea of separation of politics and administration, and critiques the human rights theory of the Declaration of Independence and its influence on the practice of American government. [p.101]
a. Goodnow explains the European viewpoint toward the rights of the individual: “In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.”
This, of course was the desire of Goodnow and the Progressives for America.
Does the flashing light 'Idiot' on your forehead keep you awake at night?
Do you ever get tired of posting these fallacious 'all liberals are evil' lists?
Hey, if the shoe fits...
But, do you ever get tired of bloviating, you wind-bag?
How about an actual post that includes counter evidence, links, or more than typing practice.
Beyond your ability?
Could you point out a few of the inaccuracies in the analysis?
Or are you just plain wrong?
My wife says that legally yes in her opinion because federal law does not require ID, federal law trumps lower law, that however does not mean that the federal law is right. It just means that a state can't legally question the validity of a federal law by passing a state law that is counter to it.
So that means the court made the right decision, so why are you complaining about it?
When can I expect you to do your own thinking...rather than allow the courts and left wing propaganda outlets do it?
Think: what is your objection to having American citizens be the ones who vote in American elections?
My wife says that legally yes in her opinion because federal law does not require ID, federal law trumps lower law, that however does not mean that the federal law is right. It just means that a state can't legally question the validity of a federal law by passing a state law that is counter to it.
So that means the court made the right decision, so why are you complaining about it?
When can I expect you to do your own thinking...rather than allow the courts and left wing propaganda outlets do it?
Think: what is your objection to having American citizens be the ones who vote in American elections?
Everything else in this thread flows from that decision, not whether or not court decisions are almighty.
The Heritage Foundation?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Those idiots think that tobacco is non-addicitve
This is only fun when someone bites it big time: thats where you come in!
What an interesting and astute rebuttal to a statistical analysis....
glad to see you working to ability.
Could you point out a few of the inaccuracies in the analysis?
Or are you just plain wrong?
You're just stupid to realize you haven't posted any study. All you did was post what someone said about the study.
And it's all because you're too frightened to admit to the violence emanating from the right, a violence meant to deny people the right to vote because conservatives hate americans
So that means the court made the right decision, so why are you complaining about it?
When can I expect you to do your own thinking...rather than allow the courts and left wing propaganda outlets do it?
Think: what is your objection to having American citizens be the ones who vote in American elections?
Everything else in this thread flows from that decision, not whether or not court decisions are almighty.
because someone is doing their own thinking only when they agree with you?
that's pretty funny.
This is only fun when someone bites it big time: thats where you come in!
What an interesting and astute rebuttal to a statistical analysis....
glad to see you working to ability.
Could you point out a few of the inaccuracies in the analysis?
Or are you just plain wrong?
You're just stupid to realize you haven't posted any study. All you did was post what someone said about the study.
And it's all because you're too frightened to admit to the violence emanating from the right, a violence meant to deny people the right to vote because conservatives hate americans
Conservatives hate Americans??? You are fooling right????
You really had me going there for a minute!
I almost pissed my pants!
Do you know any good bar jokes too?
Elevator jokes???
Do you do tricks, magic tricks that is?????
You're just stupid to realize you haven't posted any study. All you did was post what someone said about the study.
And it's all because you're too frightened to admit to the violence emanating from the right, a violence meant to deny people the right to vote because conservatives hate americans
Conservatives hate Americans??? You are fooling right????
You really had me going there for a minute!
I almost pissed my pants!
Do you know any good bar jokes too?
Elevator jokes???
Do you do tricks, magic tricks that is?????
Conservatives hate Americans who are black, latino, immigrants, Muslim, South Asian (they look Muslim to the wingntus), liberals, women, doctors, atheists, Jews, liberals, democrats and more. That makes up more than 1/2 the US population
You're just stupid to realize you haven't posted any study. All you did was post what someone said about the study.
And it's all because you're too frightened to admit to the violence emanating from the right, a violence meant to deny people the right to vote because conservatives hate americans
Conservatives hate Americans??? You are fooling right????
You really had me going there for a minute!
I almost pissed my pants!
Do you know any good bar jokes too?
Elevator jokes???
Do you do tricks, magic tricks that is?????
Conservatives hate Americans who are black, latino, immigrants, Muslim, South Asian (they look Muslim to the wingntus), liberals, women, doctors, atheists, Jews, liberals, democrats and more. That makes up more than 1/2 the US population
Conservatives hate Americans??? You are fooling right????
You really had me going there for a minute!
I almost pissed my pants!
Do you know any good bar jokes too?
Elevator jokes???
Do you do tricks, magic tricks that is?????
Conservatives hate Americans who are black, latino, immigrants, Muslim, South Asian (they look Muslim to the wingntus), liberals, women, doctors, atheists, Jews, liberals, democrats and more. That makes up more than 1/2 the US population
Generalize much?
So that means the court made the right decision, so why are you complaining about it?
When can I expect you to do your own thinking...rather than allow the courts and left wing propaganda outlets do it?
Think: what is your objection to having American citizens be the ones who vote in American elections?
Everything else in this thread flows from that decision, not whether or not court decisions are almighty.
because someone is doing their own thinking only when they agree with you?
that's pretty funny.
You're just stupid to realize you haven't posted any study. All you did was post what someone said about the study.
And it's all because you're too frightened to admit to the violence emanating from the right, a violence meant to deny people the right to vote because conservatives hate americans
Conservatives hate Americans??? You are fooling right????
You really had me going there for a minute!
I almost pissed my pants!
Do you know any good bar jokes too?
Elevator jokes???
Do you do tricks, magic tricks that is?????
Conservatives hate Americans who are black, latino, immigrants, Muslim, South Asian (they look Muslim to the wingntus), liberals, women, doctors, atheists, Jews, liberals, democrats and more. That makes up more than 1/2 the US population
Conservatives hate Americans who are black, latino, immigrants, Muslim, South Asian (they look Muslim to the wingntus), liberals, women, doctors, atheists, Jews, liberals, democrats and more. That makes up more than 1/2 the US population
Generalize much?
Only when it's justified
Conservatives hate Americans who are black, latino, immigrants, Muslim, South Asian (they look Muslim to the wingntus), liberals, women, doctors, atheists, Jews, liberals, democrats and more. That makes up more than 1/2 the US population
Generalize much?
Only when it's justified
When can I expect you to do your own thinking...rather than allow the courts and left wing propaganda outlets do it?
Think: what is your objection to having American citizens be the ones who vote in American elections?
Everything else in this thread flows from that decision, not whether or not court decisions are almighty.
because someone is doing their own thinking only when they agree with you?
that's pretty funny.
Best part is there's a conservative here (ConHog) who agrees with me on this and she's just ignoring him to pretend disagreeing with her is something only them bad liberals do, or something.
