Republicans repetedly keep blacks from voting

[Kat]

Which point was he trying to make?

You tell me. Did you go back and read everything?

It is clear what I believed he meant by this question.

You seem to think he meant something else, tell me what he meant then

Sorry, you aren't clear about anything other than trying to get attention, and yes, whining.

 

[Immanuel]

You can not and refuse to even try to document your claims that the dems do it too because no such evindence exsist.


I gave you all court documented cold hard facts to proove the republican party wants to keep black people from voting to win elections (out of their own mouths).

You have repetedly called me a liar for doing so.

Now when the burden of proof lies in your lap you just spew bullshit?

I called you a liar because you are a liar.

Your "evidence" has been properly defeated, yet you continue to claim that unproven allegations are fact.What unproven allegations? immy as a citizen I am perfectly within mhy rights to acess the evidence in this cazse and determine they are guilty of breaking the law. You see that is completetly separate from me making the mistake where I thought (from the definition I read adn posted) that they had to admitt guilt in the case. I was wrong and was proven wrong by the court document. As soon as I saw this I admitted my mistake. That being done I can still view them as guitly of these crime by weight of the evidence. Not just once or twice but dozens of times after admitting to your mistake even. That is why you have proven yourself a liar. That and the fact that you have attempted to change my words.Then tell me what you meant when you asked if I thought the dems didnt do these things? Tell me how you get from a court document that the dems were encouraged to fiule false suits?

I suspect that if you wanted to you could find dozens more accusations against the RNC. I also suspect that the RNC would be guilty of many of those accusations. The problem is until they are found guilty by a court, they are considered innocent. They are scummy, but so is the DNC.The court determined they broke a consent decree , that is a finding of guilt. Now the dems have done scummy things Im sure but the court record prooves the Rs have systematically worked to disenfranchise perfectly legal voters, go get your proof the dems are as bad.

And I suspect that if I wanted to take the time to prove to a moron that the DNC was not saintly, that I could do so. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING THAT MUCH TIME TO DO SO BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD PROOF MEANS. However, my problem would be the same as yours. I would have to rely on telling lies to state that they are guilty of crimes, because there has been no court findings that I know of.

I can suspect that the RNC is guilty of the allegations involved in this discussion. I'd even be willing to bet that they are. What I am not willing to do is convict them based on allegations that have not been proven in a court of law. When you get a court to find guilt then I'll be happy to see those convicted resting behind bars. Not until.

You have refused to answer my question and it was a simple question.

Do you know what Innocent Until Proven Guilty means? Now, since you have ignored it for so long, I'm going to make it even more difficult for you. Explain what it means.I already did a couplke of times, its a term for the courts and not for the layman, It is not a lie for me to say I think the poponderance of the evidence prooves the RNC guilty.

BTW the court alos desided that they were guilty of breaking the consent decree and I showed that in the c.ourt records

The burden of proof only lies in my lap if I care to prove it. I don't. It is not a relevant fact in this discussion.

It is not relevant to you that you claim the DNC has done the same as the republicans and refuse to do the homework to try and proove your claim?

Posts like these are almost impossible to answer well, so I will do my best to pull out the bullshit and give you an answer.

What unproven allegations?

None of the allegations presented in the Consent Decree were ever proven. Let me remind you:

making the mistake where I thought (from the definition I read adn posted) that they had to admitt guilt in the case. I was wrong and was proven wrong by the court document

There was no admission of guilt NOR finding of guilt!

Then tell me what you meant when you asked if I thought the dems didnt do these things?

It seemed like my question was pretty simple to me. I'm not sure where you are having a problem with it.

Let me try again: Do you think that Democrats do not attempt to influence elections in ways that decent people would think are unscrupulous? By such methods I mean (not an all inclusive list by any means) things like filing fraudulent voters registration cards to bog down the system, dead men voting, intimidation at polling places etc. etc. etc.

The court determined they broke a consent decree

That is another lie. The court stated that they would not modify the decree in favor of the Republicans because of the intervenor lawsuits that had been filed. The court did not find that the decree had been broken rather since the democrats had been out fishing for willing cohorts to file frivolous lawsuits i.e. Malone in the link you provided earlier that they decided to continue to enforce the decree in a one-sided manner. That would be surprising to me if it was not the District Court of New Jersey or had it been California's court.

Now the dems have done scummy things Im sure

Maybe there is hope for you yet.

but the court record prooves the Rs have systematically worked to disenfranchise perfectly legal voters

Wrong again. The court record doesn't even try to prove such.

go get your proof the dems are as bad.

I don't think I said "as" bad although I believe they are.

You even admitted that the dems were scummy too.

Now the dems have done scummy things Im sure

Are you calling yourself a liar now?

In re "innocent until proven guilty":

I already did a couplke of times, its a term for the courts and not for the layman, It is not a lie for me to say I think the poponderance of the evidence prooves the RNC guilty.

That is not an answer and no it is not a term for the courts. It is a term we as Americans are told we live by. Jurors are told when they go into a trial that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty" and in legal matters it is not a preponderance of the evidence it is BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

I'll ask it again, Do you know what Innocent until proven guilty means?

Do you realize that your above answer shows you are unamerican.

BTW the court alos desided that they were guilty of breaking the consent decree and I showed that in the c.ourt records

No, the courts ruled that because of intervenor lawsuits they would not release the RNC from the decree. It does not say that they broke the decree.

It is not relevant to you that you claim the DNC has done the same as the republicans and refuse to do the homework to try and proove your claim?

Proving the claim is not important to me. Spending hours upon hours trying to convince you that you sound like a moron is... well, quite simply not necessary. You have done a damned good job of it throughout this entire thread.

Immie

 

[Truthmatters]

I love how namecalling passes as evidence for cons yet court documented evidence and judicial decisions mean nothing to you people.

 

[Yurt]

http://brennan.3cdn.net/55c542f8931183a71e_43m6i2q5b.pdf




"the RNC responded to a discovery request by producing a memo from its Midwest Political Director to its Southern Political Director, in which the former stated that I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60,000-80,000 folks from the rolls … If it‟s a close race … which I‟m assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably.”“ See Thomas Edsall, Ballot Security Effects Calculated: GOP Aide Said Lousiana Effort “Could Keep the Black Vote Down,” Wash. Post, Oct. 24, 1986 at A1."


Now lets remember this is in a court document written by a the judge in his decision

your court document says allegedly

perhaps someday you will find the truth and stop these idiotic lies

 

[Truthmatters]

I called you a liar because you are a liar.

Your "evidence" has been properly defeated, yet you continue to claim that unproven allegations are fact.What unproven allegations? immy as a citizen I am perfectly within mhy rights to acess the evidence in this cazse and determine they are guilty of breaking the law. You see that is completetly separate from me making the mistake where I thought (from the definition I read adn posted) that they had to admitt guilt in the case. I was wrong and was proven wrong by the court document. As soon as I saw this I admitted my mistake. That being done I can still view them as guitly of these crime by weight of the evidence. Not just once or twice but dozens of times after admitting to your mistake even. That is why you have proven yourself a liar. That and the fact that you have attempted to change my words.Then tell me what you meant when you asked if I thought the dems didnt do these things? Tell me how you get from a court document that the dems were encouraged to fiule false suits?

I suspect that if you wanted to you could find dozens more accusations against the RNC. I also suspect that the RNC would be guilty of many of those accusations. The problem is until they are found guilty by a court, they are considered innocent. They are scummy, but so is the DNC.The court determined they broke a consent decree , that is a finding of guilt. Now the dems have done scummy things Im sure but the court record prooves the Rs have systematically worked to disenfranchise perfectly legal voters, go get your proof the dems are as bad.

And I suspect that if I wanted to take the time to prove to a moron that the DNC was not saintly, that I could do so. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING THAT MUCH TIME TO DO SO BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD PROOF MEANS. However, my problem would be the same as yours. I would have to rely on telling lies to state that they are guilty of crimes, because there has been no court findings that I know of.

I can suspect that the RNC is guilty of the allegations involved in this discussion. I'd even be willing to bet that they are. What I am not willing to do is convict them based on allegations that have not been proven in a court of law. When you get a court to find guilt then I'll be happy to see those convicted resting behind bars. Not until.

You have refused to answer my question and it was a simple question.

Do you know what Innocent Until Proven Guilty means? Now, since you have ignored it for so long, I'm going to make it even more difficult for you. Explain what it means.I already did a couplke of times, its a term for the courts and not for the layman, It is not a lie for me to say I think the poponderance of the evidence prooves the RNC guilty.

BTW the court alos desided that they were guilty of breaking the consent decree and I showed that in the c.ourt records

The burden of proof only lies in my lap if I care to prove it. I don't. It is not a relevant fact in this discussion.

It is not relevant to you that you claim the DNC has done the same as the republicans and refuse to do the homework to try and proove your claim?

Posts like these are almost impossible to answer well, so I will do my best to pull out the bullshit and give you an answer.




None of the allegations presented in the Consent Decree were ever proven. Let me remind you:



There was no admission of guilt NOR finding of guilt!



It seemed like my question was pretty simple to me. I'm not sure where you are having a problem with it.

Let me try again: Do you think that Democrats do not attempt to influence elections in ways that decent people would think are unscrupulous? By such methods I mean (not an all inclusive list by any means) things like filing fraudulent voters registration cards to bog down the system, dead men voting, intimidation at polling places etc. etc. etc.



That is another lie. The court stated that they would not modify the decree in favor of the Republicans because of the intervenor lawsuits that had been filed. The court did not find that the decree had been broken rather since the democrats had been out fishing for willing cohorts to file frivolous lawsuits i.e. Malone in the link you provided earlier that they decided to continue to enforce the decree in a one-sided manner. That would be surprising to me if it was not the District Court of New Jersey or had it been California's court.



Maybe there is hope for you yet.



Wrong again. The court record doesn't even try to prove such.



I don't think I said "as" bad although I believe they are.

You even admitted that the dems were scummy too.



Are you calling yourself a liar now?

In re "innocent until proven guilty":


That is not an answer and no it is not a term for the courts. It is a term we as Americans are told we live by. Jurors are told when they go into a trial that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty" and in legal matters it is not a preponderance of the evidence it is BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

I'll ask it again, Do you know what Innocent until proven guilty means?

Do you realize that your above answer shows you are unamerican.

BTW the court alos desided that they were guilty of breaking the consent decree and I showed that in the c.ourt records

No, the courts ruled that because of intervenor lawsuits they would not release the RNC from the decree. It does not say that they broke the decree.

It is not relevant to you that you claim the DNC has done the same as the republicans and refuse to do the homework to try and proove your claim?

Proving the claim is not important to me. Spending hours upon hours trying to convince you that you sound like a moron is... well, quite simply not necessary. You have done a damned good job of it throughout this entire thread.

Immie

So all those documents where the RNC were talking about on paper keeping down the black vote to win elections proove nothing?

 

[Jarhead]

I love how namecalling passes as evidence for cons yet court documented evidence and judicial decisions mean nothing to you people.

court documented evidence and judicial decisions mean plenty to me. The way you skew the facts so they can be applied to the talking points you like to regurgitate is, well, to be frank, quite humorous...albeit, a bit concerning.

 

[DiveCon]

I love how namecalling passes as evidence for cons yet court documented evidence and judicial decisions mean nothing to you people.

you get names because you DESERVE them

 

[DiveCon]

I love how namecalling passes as evidence for cons yet court documented evidence and judicial decisions mean nothing to you people.

court documented evidence and judicial decisions mean plenty to me. The way you skew the facts so they can be applied to the talking points you like to regurgitate is, well, to be frank, quite humorous...albeit, a bit concerning.

yup, she loves to put a spin on everything

dems = holy and saintly

gop= evil and disgusting

 

[Immanuel]

Why did he ask taht question?

why would it come up if it were the Rs crimes we were talking of?

What difference does it make? Though I can't speak for him, I would guess he was trying to make a point, which seems to have gone over your head.
But, wasn't this about the reason he called you a liar, and not the fact of what he said about dems? Why are you dodging that? Your err was in the reason he called you a liar.
Maybe you should go back and read it all again.

Which point was he trying to make?

That you continue to lie by claiming that the consent decree proves guilt.

Anyone that did not read the decree would assume that you are telling the truth (well anyone who didn't know you that is.) when, in fact, you are lying about that.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

It is not relevant to you that you claim the DNC has done the same as the republicans and refuse to do the homework to try and proove your claim?

Posts like these are almost impossible to answer well, so I will do my best to pull out the bullshit and give you an answer.




None of the allegations presented in the Consent Decree were ever proven. Let me remind you:



There was no admission of guilt NOR finding of guilt!



It seemed like my question was pretty simple to me. I'm not sure where you are having a problem with it.

Let me try again: Do you think that Democrats do not attempt to influence elections in ways that decent people would think are unscrupulous? By such methods I mean (not an all inclusive list by any means) things like filing fraudulent voters registration cards to bog down the system, dead men voting, intimidation at polling places etc. etc. etc.



That is another lie. The court stated that they would not modify the decree in favor of the Republicans because of the intervenor lawsuits that had been filed. The court did not find that the decree had been broken rather since the democrats had been out fishing for willing cohorts to file frivolous lawsuits i.e. Malone in the link you provided earlier that they decided to continue to enforce the decree in a one-sided manner. That would be surprising to me if it was not the District Court of New Jersey or had it been California's court.



Maybe there is hope for you yet.



Wrong again. The court record doesn't even try to prove such.



I don't think I said "as" bad although I believe they are.

You even admitted that the dems were scummy too.



Are you calling yourself a liar now?

In re "innocent until proven guilty":


That is not an answer and no it is not a term for the courts. It is a term we as Americans are told we live by. Jurors are told when they go into a trial that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty" and in legal matters it is not a preponderance of the evidence it is BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

I'll ask it again, Do you know what Innocent until proven guilty means?

Do you realize that your above answer shows you are unamerican.



No, the courts ruled that because of intervenor lawsuits they would not release the RNC from the decree. It does not say that they broke the decree.

It is not relevant to you that you claim the DNC has done the same as the republicans and refuse to do the homework to try and proove your claim?

Proving the claim is not important to me. Spending hours upon hours trying to convince you that you sound like a moron is... well, quite simply not necessary. You have done a damned good job of it throughout this entire thread.

Immie

So all those documents where the RNC were talking about on paper keeping down the black vote to win elections proove nothing?

why is it you want to make them into something they were NOT?
because you are a hyper-partisan LIAR

 

[Immanuel]

Which point was he trying to make?

You tell me. Did you go back and read everything?

It is clear what I believed he meant by this question.

You seem to think he meant something else, tell me what he meant then

No, it is clear what you want everyone else to think I meant.

Immie

 

[Jarhead]

You, truthmatters, have opted to see that as evidence to keep down the black vote.
Rational, individual thinking people see it as the GOP doing its best to maintain the integrity of our electoral system.
And I would see it the same way if the Democraticv party did the same thing.

Ironically, you asked for proof that the democratic party ever did somethiung similar.

Maybe they have not.

SO I must ask....Why are the democrats not concerned with maintaining the integerity of our electoral system?

 

[Truthmatters]

GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down' - Los Angeles Times





"In an Aug. 13 memo the court made public Friday, Kris Wolfe, the Republican National Committee Midwest political director, wrote Lanny Griffith, the committee's Southern political director, and said of the Louisiana campaigning:

"I know this race is really important to you. I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls. . . . If it's a close race . . . which I'm assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably."
"



Yeah they were not guilty huh?

More from the article
"The committee's ballot security program was conducted in Louisiana, Indiana and Missouri. Before it became controversial, GOP political strategists said they planned to use it in other states.

'Insidious Scheme'

Louisiana state District Court Judge Richard E. Lee issued an injunction against the program on Oct. 14. In his order, Lee said: "This was an insidious scheme by the Republican Party to remove blacks from the voting roles."
"

I guess these court remarks mean nothing to you people?

 

[Truthmatters]

You tell me. Did you go back and read everything?

It is clear what I believed he meant by this question.

You seem to think he meant something else, tell me what he meant then

No, it is clear what you want everyone else to think I meant.

Immie

You clearly implied that the dems did the same things too.

 

[Immanuel]

yes, some ACORN employees were convicted, several in fact

and no, truthnevermaters would NOT give the RNC that doubt

what she will never admit is that BOTH the major parties do things that violate the integrity of the vote

Then prove the democratic party does what you claim with the same level of court documented evidence that I gave?

The democratic party is scum sucking. And I don't have to prove that either. It is what I believe.
Oh and FYI..I am NOT a Republican. I am a conservative. I think for myself. Obviously since you have bought all dem talking points hook, line., and sinker, you don't think at all.
You made a point here, which in reality is useless, so isn't it time to knock it off?
It looks pathetically like mere attention seeking.

For the record, you and I are not entitled to believe that about the DNC. These are her words from post #368 which was too long to quote here, so I am only pulling this one sentence out.

immy as a citizen I am perfectly within mhy rights to acess the evidence in this cazse and determine they are guilty of breaking the law

Obviously from her posts she has the right to believe that the RNC is guilty of every crime in the book. You and I on the other hand are not so entitled in reference to the Saintly Party.

Immie

 

[Truthmatters]

At least I have evidence to provide that backs my accessment, unlike you

 

[LibocalypseNow]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU[/ame]

Seriously,how could this Administration refuse to prosecute these Black Panther "Community Organizers?" Pretty clear Voter-Intimidation no? Reality vs. Socialist/Progressive paranoia? Go with reality.

 

[DiveCon]

You, truthmatters, have opted to see that as evidence to keep down the black vote.
Rational, individual thinking people see it as the GOP doing its best to maintain the integrity of our electoral system.
And I would see it the same way if the Democraticv party did the same thing.

Ironically, you asked for proof that the democratic party ever did somethiung similar.

Maybe they have not.

SO I must ask....Why are the democrats not concerned with maintaining the integerity of our electoral system?

the GOP is not innocent in this
they have done things that were wrong
but dipshit here(truthnevermatters) will never admit that the DNC has done OTHER similar things to inflate their votes
both parties are guilty, only SHE wants to only place blame on the GOP

 

[SFC Ollie]

Democrats appear to believe that they need voter fraud in order to win elections in most years. They also seem to feel that their own voters are too incompetent to register on a timely basis so they are eligible to vote. It will take constant vigilance to thwart these efforts. We also need to push for voter ID to make it more difficult for them to effect these scams.

John Fund

A voter fraud investigation by Alabama’s Attorney General developed allegations that absentee ballots in the state’s Perry County were being sold for $40.00 each. The evidence was rather compelling that fraud was involved in a June 2008 Democrat primary being investigated. The statewide turnout was 16%, but Perry’s turnout was 50% which was amazing considering 25% of the county is under 18. One quarter of Perry’s votes were absentee ballots.

Last week Wisconsin Democrats tried to ram through a bill that would have turned state driver’s license information over to what was euphemistically called “nationally recognized community organizing groups” (read ACORN) so they can “encourage” increased voter turnout.

In 2004 John Kerry carried Wisconsin by 11,380 votes. Soon after the election, fraud allegations from Milwaukee were investigated and found that as many as 5300 MORE votes than eligible voters were counted from the city.

Collins Report Democrat voter fraud

And the fraud goes on.

 

[gslack]

At least I have evidence to provide that backs my accessment, unlike you

Truthmatters, if truth really did matter to you, you wouldn't be so blindly partisan... Truth is never so cut and dry to one side or another, and to pretend it is is deliberately lying to yourself...