Section 4 of the VRA found unconsitutional

[daveman]

Yes, I have a question. Why are you lying?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Wow, what a lame attempt to distract from your lies.

SCOTUS didn't rule against voting rights for anyone. They just pointed out to Congress that the laws was based on 40-year-old data, and that Jim Crow laws are no longer in effect.

It's absolutely PATHETIC that this needs to be pointed out to you.

 

[Spoonman]

When you speak of voter suppression or some new laws to slow up voters Repubs don't care UNTIL you mention gun control and slowing that process then suddenly "Slow ups and Hurdles" are a big deal.

See how that works? The question is why?

funny how liberal hypocrites claim requiring and id to vote infringes on a constitutional right but for the constitutional right of owning a gun they want an ID, background checks. limits put on who can own, what they can own, where they can use them, the right to be stripped of the individual has a mental issue. Imagine if we applied all of that to voting.

Funny how that goes both ways huh.

actually it doesn't go both ways. conservatives don't try to put limits and restrictions on voting for citizens

 

[daveman]

Yes, I have a question. Why are you lying?

How is that a lie?

They didn't vote against voting rights for anyone -- thus, it's a lie.

 

[Zarius]

Yes, I have a question. Why are you lying?

How is that a lie?

They didn't vote against voting rights for anyone -- thus, it's a lie.

If that is the case why did Texas tearepugs run right in just hours after the decision and suppress the vote?

 

[daveman]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

No that's not what the rulling means at all. you havent even attempted to refute what others are pointing out the ruling to mean.

There is nothing preventing congress from updating standards.

Not true. Tea Party racism IS preventing it. The damn tea party hates VRA.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x_aFH7JDYU]Racist Exposed # 3: His Channel is 'GradyWarren' - YouTube[/ame]

So, you have no problem with DoJ having to have a say in how Mississippi runs its elections (even though it has a high black voter registration and turnout), but think Massachusetts (which has a much lower rate of black voter registration and turnout) should be left alone.

Of course, you never heard about that from the liberal media, did you?

Voting Rights in Massachusetts and Mississippi | Cato @ Liberty

 

[daveman]

When you speak of voter suppression or some new laws to slow up voters Repubs don't care UNTIL you mention gun control and slowing that process then suddenly "Slow ups and Hurdles" are a big deal.

See how that works? The question is why?

funny how liberal hypocrites claim requiring and id to vote infringes on a constitutional right but for the constitutional right of owning a gun they want an ID, background checks. limits put on who can own, what they can own, where they can use them, the right to be stripped of the individual has a mental issue. Imagine if we applied all of that to voting.

Like racism, liberals are incapable of hypocrisy. Just ask them.

 

[daveman]

When you speak of voter suppression or some new laws to slow up voters Repubs don't care UNTIL you mention gun control and slowing that process then suddenly "Slow ups and Hurdles" are a big deal.

See how that works? The question is why?

Because the overriding goal of any gun control proponent is to eventually ban private ownership of firearms, and you know it.

If a person is valid to vote I have no issue with them voting. I don't want someone who shouldnt be voting due to a valid restriction on said right ever setting foot in a ballot box.

Right now we can tell felons from non felons when it comes to guns because you do have to pass a background check. The same should be applied to voting.

And the ultimate goal of tea repubs is a return to 1963. No one is fooled.

You are, when you dutifully believe and parrot crap like that.

 

[ClosedCaption]

funny how liberal hypocrites claim requiring and id to vote infringes on a constitutional right but for the constitutional right of owning a gun they want an ID, background checks. limits put on who can own, what they can own, where they can use them, the right to be stripped of the individual has a mental issue. Imagine if we applied all of that to voting.

Funny how that goes both ways huh.

actually it doesn't go both ways. conservatives don't try to put limits and restrictions on voting for citizens

Sure, do you tell that to yourself as a bedtime story?

 

[daveman]

How is that a lie?

They didn't vote against voting rights for anyone -- thus, it's a lie.

If that is the case why did Texas tearepugs run right in just hours after the decision and suppress the vote?

If you even made the slightest attempt to think for yourself, you might be interesting to talk to.

No legally-allowed voters have been suppressed. Only voters who are not legally allowed to vote.

Why do you want illegal voters to disenfranchise legal voters?

 

[Kondor3]

If I am understanding this correctly, then...

The Supreme Court did not vote against equal voting rights for all citizens...

It merely lifted a 40+ year -old close scrutiny on various Southern States (formerly slave and Rebel-Confederate States, mostly) and locales where a history of biased voter qualifications existed.

The Court used, as its rationale, the idea that it's been 40 years and that demographics and attitudes have changed greatly and that to continue to repress States Rights in this area in the face of those newer demographics was to do a grave injustice to the States.

The Court was probably correct.

The Civil War is over. Slavery is over. Reconstruction is over. Jim Crow is over. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s is over.

There has to be an end to Southern Penance sometime, and the Courts chose now as that time.

And, until any of these States actually manifest sustained and systemic behaviors that set them apart from their Sister States in a voting rights context, then setting aside their long-standing Singling-Out for special monitoring seems entirely logical and without the slightest trace of ill will or race-bias or bad or irresponsible governance.

All good things must come to an end... all bad things must come to an end, as well.

It is now time for that provision of the Voting Rights Act, to make an end.

I could be wrong about that, of course, but that's my own contribution to 'first takes' on all of this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Considering most of the white people in the country at the time were just fine with Plessy v. Fergueson, that would have been an issue.

And that ruling had nothing to do with vote infringement, that was local, and up close and personal.

They would have had to start reconstruction all over again, and no one had the will for that.

It was the first ruling that said that Congress did not have the power to enforce the 14th Amendment against the states. That was the root of the government sanctioning of everything else you want to complain about, which proves that the answer is not the government.

Short of armed revolt by the black population in the areas, what would the answer be?

It, obviously, is not a government that feels free to ignore the Constitution.

 

[Spoonman]

Funny how that goes both ways huh.

actually it doesn't go both ways. conservatives don't try to put limits and restrictions on voting for citizens

Sure, do you tell that to yourself as a bedtime story?

of course you can provide some examples of any restrictions republicans have tried to put on voting.


well then again, probably you can't

 

[ClosedCaption]

actually it doesn't go both ways. conservatives don't try to put limits and restrictions on voting for citizens

Sure, do you tell that to yourself as a bedtime story?

of course you can provide some examples of any restrictions republicans have tried to put on voting.


well then again, probably you can't

I've played this game and I hate to ruin your surprise but this is how it goes.

I show something that clearly shows making it harder to vote for some people. You call it something else instead of "making it harder" you'll call it "easy". Then proceed to tell me why these things that are easy are easily done. I'll call it voter suppression and you'll call it...for example, Apple Pie. Then tell me why apple pie is not only easy but delicious.

Did I nail it?

 

[Spoonman]

Sure, do you tell that to yourself as a bedtime story?

of course you can provide some examples of any restrictions republicans have tried to put on voting.


well then again, probably you can't

I've played this game and I hate to ruin your surprise but this is how it goes.

I show something that clearly shows making it harder to vote for some people. You call it something else instead of "making it harder" you'll call it "easy". Then proceed to tell me why these things that are easy are easily done. I'll call it voter suppression and you'll call it...for example, Apple Pie. Then tell me why apple pie is not only easy but delicious.

Did I nail it?

so in other words you can't show me any restrictions on voting republicans have tried to put on voters. well living voters anyway. So I was right

 

[martybegan]

Sure, do you tell that to yourself as a bedtime story?

of course you can provide some examples of any restrictions republicans have tried to put on voting.


well then again, probably you can't

I've played this game and I hate to ruin your surprise but this is how it goes.

I show something that clearly shows making it harder to vote for some people. You call it something else instead of "making it harder" you'll call it "easy". Then proceed to tell me why these things that are easy are easily done. I'll call it voter suppression and you'll call it...for example, Apple Pie. Then tell me why apple pie is not only easy but delicious.

Did I nail it?

You just followed the 5 D's of Dodgeball!!!

Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and.....Dodge.

 

[ClosedCaption]

of course you can provide some examples of any restrictions republicans have tried to put on voting.


well then again, probably you can't

I've played this game and I hate to ruin your surprise but this is how it goes.

I show something that clearly shows making it harder to vote for some people. You call it something else instead of "making it harder" you'll call it "easy". Then proceed to tell me why these things that are easy are easily done. I'll call it voter suppression and you'll call it...for example, Apple Pie. Then tell me why apple pie is not only easy but delicious.

Did I nail it?

so in other words you can't show me any restrictions on voting republicans have tried to put on voters. well living voters anyway. So I was right

Ok, let me try this again. I will show you and you will say it doesn't restrict. That's how this game Is played.

Here is an example and you will respond the way I said you would:

In North Carolina, Republicans have proposed bills that would cut early voting. This is the definition of a restriction.

Now, read your lines and tell me "This is not a restriction it's *insert stupid adjective*"

Annnd go!

 

[martybegan]

I've played this game and I hate to ruin your surprise but this is how it goes.

I show something that clearly shows making it harder to vote for some people. You call it something else instead of "making it harder" you'll call it "easy". Then proceed to tell me why these things that are easy are easily done. I'll call it voter suppression and you'll call it...for example, Apple Pie. Then tell me why apple pie is not only easy but delicious.

Did I nail it?

so in other words you can't show me any restrictions on voting republicans have tried to put on voters. well living voters anyway. So I was right

Ok, let me try this again. I will show you and you will say it doesn't restrict. That's how this game Is played.

Here is an example and you will respond the way I said you would:

In North Carolina, Republicans have proposed bills that would cut early voting. This is the definition of a restriction.

Now, read your lines and tell me "This is not a restriction it's *insert stupid adjective*"

Annnd go!

Is it a restriction based on race, or any other discriminating qualifier? Or does it apply to everyone equally?

 

[Spoonman]

I've played this game and I hate to ruin your surprise but this is how it goes.

I show something that clearly shows making it harder to vote for some people. You call it something else instead of "making it harder" you'll call it "easy". Then proceed to tell me why these things that are easy are easily done. I'll call it voter suppression and you'll call it...for example, Apple Pie. Then tell me why apple pie is not only easy but delicious.

Did I nail it?

so in other words you can't show me any restrictions on voting republicans have tried to put on voters. well living voters anyway. So I was right

Ok, let me try this again. I will show you and you will say it doesn't restrict. That's how this game Is played.

Here is an example and you will respond the way I said you would:

In North Carolina, Republicans have proposed bills that would cut early voting. This is the definition of a restriction.

Now, read your lines and tell me "This is not a restriction it's *insert stupid adjective*"

Annnd go!

how does cutting early voting prejudice one group over another? how does it limit the right to vote? how does it restrict anyone from voting?

 

[ClosedCaption]

so in other words you can't show me any restrictions on voting republicans have tried to put on voters. well living voters anyway. So I was right

Ok, let me try this again. I will show you and you will say it doesn't restrict. That's how this game Is played.

Here is an example and you will respond the way I said you would:

In North Carolina, Republicans have proposed bills that would cut early voting. This is the definition of a restriction.

Now, read your lines and tell me "This is not a restriction it's *insert stupid adjective*"

Annnd go!

how does cutting early voting prejudice one group over another? how does it limit the right to vote? how does it restrict anyone from voting?

Because previously they could and Republicans want it to stop...otherwise known as restricting.

restricting present participle of re·strict (Verb)

Verb

1.Put a limit on; control.
2.Deprive (someone or something) of freedom of movement or action.

I see you've chosen the ignorance route where you pretend not to understand simple words. I assume you'll keep asking silly questions. Let's see.

 

[Zarius]

so in other words you can't show me any restrictions on voting republicans have tried to put on voters. well living voters anyway. So I was right

Ok, let me try this again. I will show you and you will say it doesn't restrict. That's how this game Is played.

Here is an example and you will respond the way I said you would:

In North Carolina, Republicans have proposed bills that would cut early voting. This is the definition of a restriction.

Now, read your lines and tell me "This is not a restriction it's *insert stupid adjective*"

Annnd go!

how does cutting early voting prejudice one group over another? how does it limit the right to vote? how does it restrict anyone from voting?

You people know what you are doing. what if the Democrats passed a voting law that required all voting to take place with in city limits only? You see how that works. No one is being they cant vote but a certain segment has to jump through hoops for it.

teapublicans think they are smart. I hope for the day the Populace wakes up to this group.