Why should blacks become republicans?

[Correll]

Tucker Carson did an eye opening piece related to what you are referring to this evening. It highlights college entrance exams and how American Universities are accepting inordinate numbers of FOREIGN BORN black people, those from wealthy Nigerian, Ethiopian, Sudanese and so forth families in order to fall within parameters of having acceptable levels of Black students - who suffers ! And who gets the short end of the stick --- The African American - Screwed Again !

Tucker Carlson? The king of disingenuous and fake news. LOL!

Tucker Carlson always has the deer in the headlights look on his face...

At least he dumped the stupid bow tie

The use of foreign born blacks to give the appearance of proportional diversity is a real problem.


By doing this, they create the illusion of successful diversity.


Thus discouraging real, honest discussion about the failure of the current policies.


And what we need to actually do to improve things.

He did have a stupid bow tie, but still makes that

LOL! This is some stump stupid bullshit.

All you have to do is spend time in a place like this and it shows you exactly what republicans are. Here is an idiot who told me that blacks should be grateful to whites freeing blacks from slavery talking about racial demagoguery.

Comments about blacks on USMB are representative of the true feelings of conservatives. In public conservatives hide their racism with code words. But on an anonymous message board, we see how they really feel

1. The people on this site are a very NON representative slice of the public. Of all my friends, I am the only one I know to spend much time of sites like this.

2. Most of the conservatives on this site are NOT racist. They are only "racist" in the definition of not wallowing in white guilt.

3. You are speaking to IM2, one of the biggest racists on this site.


4. What do you think of the actual claim, ie that Steel was appointed to increase diversity? Do you believe it? Do you think, if true, that it was right or wrong to do so?


5. And this deserves it's own point. What do you think of people that would attack republicans for not having diverse appointments and then attack them for appointing someone to be more diverse?

Steele was a shallow attempt to counteract Obama

Look! We got blacks too

Didn’t hide the fact that Republicans had only elected six blacks to Congress in the previous hundred years

Maybe. I don't know his background. He might have earned it based on his previous work.


But what if he did not, and the accusation is true.


Is that not the type of shit that you libs are always saying we need to do?


WTF, is this? Attacking us for supposedly following your advice?


Seriously? You don't see anything worth commenting on here?

Nobody is telling you to go find a token

Republicans need to actively recruit and groom minorities and women for higher office. The current machine seems centered on Christian, white males

So, "token" is someone that is there PURELY based on skin color? Is that how you are using the term?


Steele does not seem to be that. I saw him on several TV programs. He seemed competent and pretty much exactly what I would expect from a GOP establishment.


So, Like I asked,



WTF, is this? Attacking us for supposedly following your advice?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
People who were born in this country and have been voting for years but have problems in their birth records, name changes, clerical errors in their records

So, what you're saying is black people are too stupid to have birth certificates and ID?

It obvious that you honestly see black people as inferior and incapable of conducting their lives the way white people do.

I told Asslips yesterday that I don't come across many racist whites. You and the other smarmy Marxists here are the exception to that rule.

Many don’t

What are you going to do about it?

Many don't what? Have ID?

{
As for blacks being “targeted” by voter-ID laws, a study by Reuters found almost no difference (2 versus 3 percent) in the number of white and black voters who lacked ID.
}

The Voter-ID Myth Crashes | National Review

The next time you tell the truth about something will be the first time.

Oh, and your claim that black people are too inferior to get a photo ID is one of the most racist claims made here. The position of you Marxists is "how can blacks survive without democrats caring for them?'

 

[Correll]

Apparently you don't know the facts - otherwise you would use them to either formulate a cohesive opinon outside your warped little racist mindset or to offer an intelligent debate - you have done neither - - you're a racist, you're a hypocrite and you're a dullard incapable of seeing anything outside your narrow black and white tunnel vision.

The racist mindset belongs to you, and I do know the facts. You've tried the same old trick. I am a racist because I do not agree with your racist views. You are the one incapable of intelligent debate.

Dude. Greenbean just beat you like a red headed step child.


I'm not sure if you are really so stupid that you can't see that. or are just that dishonest.


But, ouch.

Green bean is a flaming racist
Hard for him to beat anyone

I don't know him that well, but he certainly just beat the snot out of IM2, who I do know and who is the hugest flaming racist.

I've whipped your ass like a government mule just like I did green bean..

Nope. YOu have no concept of how to craft an coherent argument, nor have you ever.

 

[IM2]

The racist mindset belongs to you, and I do know the facts. You've tried the same old trick. I am a racist because I do not agree with your racist views. You are the one incapable of intelligent debate.

Dude. Greenbean just beat you like a red headed step child.


I'm not sure if you are really so stupid that you can't see that. or are just that dishonest.


But, ouch.

Green bean is a flaming racist
Hard for him to beat anyone

I don't know him that well, but he certainly just beat the snot out of IM2, who I do know and who is the hugest flaming racist.

I've whipped your ass like a government mule just like I did green bean..

Nope. YOu have no concept of how to craft an coherent argument, nor have you ever.

Yeah, right.

 

[Correll]

Dude. Greenbean just beat you like a red headed step child.


I'm not sure if you are really so stupid that you can't see that. or are just that dishonest.


But, ouch.

Green bean is a flaming racist
Hard for him to beat anyone

I don't know him that well, but he certainly just beat the snot out of IM2, who I do know and who is the hugest flaming racist.

I've whipped your ass like a government mule just like I did green bean..

Nope. YOu have no concept of how to craft an coherent argument, nor have you ever.

Yeah, right.

Flat unsupported denial, about all you are capable of.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
How many times must this be explained before some of these white people stop making these dumb ass assertions? I'm black and have described how things are but this white boy seems to think he can keep believing he knows better.

No retard, you have describe YOUR views and YOUR prejudices. No one elected you "spokes racist for all black people everywhere."

The psychosis in some white people seem to allow them to dismiss how they lump people into groups and then claim how they don't in the next sentence. I am black and my independent analysis is that right now the republican party is not where I want to be. Now the other 30 plus million blacks have made the same decision. And it is based upon what the parties stand for. Saying what whites want to hear is not independent thinking, and that's why blacks in my community love what I stand for almost 100 percent and that everywhere I have been it's been the same.

Your racist views are just that, your views. You hold no more credence than any other racist hack.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Green bean is a flaming racist
Hard for him to beat anyone

I don't know him that well, but he certainly just beat the snot out of IM2, who I do know and who is the hugest flaming racist.

I've whipped your ass like a government mule just like I did green bean..

Nope. YOu have no concept of how to craft an coherent argument, nor have you ever.

Yeah, right.

Flat unsupported denial, about all you are capable of.

Under any of his aliases, Asslips is a two-bit racist. His only message is "hate whitey."

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
RW is a poster who apparently does not think black people are capable of figuring out what they think is best for themselves.

Shitflinger is a DNC hack.

He believes that black people are the rightful property of the democratic party. I'm sure asslips fully agrees.

The first step in racism is to create a group. To shitflinger and IM2, black Americans aren't people, they are not individuals with independent thoughts, talents, and desires. They are instead just drones who exist purely for the benefit of the party or the power of the leaders.

How any black person could not be offended by IM2 is a mystery to me.

How many times must this be explained before some of these white people stop making these dumb ass assertions? I'm black and have described how things are but this white boy seems to think he can keep believing he knows better.

The psychosis in some white people seem to allow them to dismiss how they lump people into groups and then claim how they don't in the next sentence. I am black and my independent analysis is that right now the republican party is not where I want to be. Now the other 30 plus million blacks have made the same decision. And it is based upon what the parties stand for. Saying what whites want to hear is not independent thinking, and that's why blacks in my community love what I stand for almost 100 percent and that everywhere I have been it's been the same.

So Asslips, it turns out a video was posted that refutes your racism so much better than I could ever do..

White Guilt

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I didn't say we hold it sacred, I said it was what we were taught. Besides, voting is a right. The 15th Amendment says precisely that. More specifically, it says neither the federal nor state government shall deny or abridge the right to vote based on race or color.

The 15th Amendment presumes a Right; it does not and cannot (under a dejure interpretation of our Constitution) grant one.

U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're confusing the Bill of Rights with the Constitution itself.

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution aren't they?

If you claim that people have an inherent Right to vote (and they don't) NOTHING on God's green earth prevents a state from allowing an undocumented foreigner from voting.

If they don't have the inherent right and no one grants it, where does it come from?

Let's do Civics 101:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, on this subject, stated:

"The Declaration of Independence . . . [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."

One of our FIRST foundational principles is that we have unalienable Rights. Those Rights are inherent, natural, unalienable, .and absolute. For instance, when Texas first ruled on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, they said:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

That is one of several state rulings and it was not changed by the United States Supreme Court while the founders were alive. The Cruikshank decision acknowledging the Right AND then admitting that the Right was not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence was essentially telling you it was one of those Rights you were born with.

So, where do those pre-existing Rights come from? Check what I said earlier. Those Rights were bestowed upon you, at birth, by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) and if you don't like the God reference, think of the synonyms: natural, inherent, absolute.

If voting were a God given, natural, inherent, absolute Right, it would have been protected by the Bill of Rights. Instead, it was created by government after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The problem we have with people understanding basic civics is that, after all the founders were dead and buried, the United States Supreme Court took over, and over-ruled their own standing precedents (which is known as legislating from the bench.) Today, nobody appreciates their unalienable Rights and nobody wants to fight the Supreme Court over their power grab.

Fact is most people defend the power grabs as the Court gave them something: Socialist Security, the ability to impose on others (i.e. forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay couples, open the bathroom to non-paying customers, warrant less searches, profiling), - Hell you name it.

Unable to distinguish between unalienable Rights, inalienable rights, government created "rights" and then privileges, most Americans are oblivious as to what their Rights really are. I make it simple for myself:

If the Right fits the foundational principles mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights, I exercise them without Uncle Scam's input. He may have the power to say otherwise, but damn sure not the authority. If the government is giving me permission via some kind of registration, license, permit, etc. then it is not a "right" as far as I'm concerned.

It makes for a much simpler way to understand what Rights we have pursuant to the foundational principles versus nine grown adults wearing ladies robes and pretending to be God. BTW, Trump did nominate Gorsuch as a start to bring the United States Supreme Court back to their constitutional role.

So in other words, our rights are inherent. That's pretty much what I said.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Voting is more of a privilege than a Right. What we claim to hold so sacred, we don't protect.

I didn't say we hold it sacred, I said it was what we were taught. Besides, voting is a right. The 15th Amendment says precisely that. More specifically, it says neither the federal nor state government shall deny or abridge the right to vote based on race or color.

The 15th Amendment presumes a Right; it does not and cannot (under a dejure interpretation of our Constitution) grant one.

U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're exactly right. The Constitution does not grant Rights. The Constitution can guarantees the basic Rights found in the first ten Amendments aka the Bill of Rights. Remember what the United States Supreme Court said in the Cruikshank decision:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

When you have the United States Supreme Court saying that your Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, you should take them at their word.

Now, is there a "right" to vote? Well if you have a God given, inherent, unalienable Right to vote, then ANYONE can vote... citizen, non - citizen. You do realize that isn't correct though. Right?

So, the government grants privileges, calls them "rights" and leaves us to squabble over semantics.

The constitution damn sure granted whites rights. But now suddenly it des not grant rifgs wgen yu want t make excuses

15 cases of vote fraud in 31 years means once every 2 years they may find a case of fraud. The chances of such fraud are small. There is no reason for additional laws to stop it.

There are no less than 1132 documented cases of voter fraud from 1986 to 2017, 983 of which ended in criminal convictions. Besides, if it doesn't make much of a difference either way, why fight it?

 

[MarathonMike]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

Do you want more opportunities for Blacks or more entitlements? Donald Trump views Black people as an underutilized resource. The GOP wants more workers and more taxpayers. The DEMs want more government dependents so Blacks will vote to keep their checks coming. The GOP wants you making your own money so you can contribute to the economy and pay taxes.

The GOP is against everything that has created the opportunity for blacks to do the things you describe. The leadership of the party tell you idiots this and you believe it, but I live in a republican state, worked in an organization that was working to create jobs in the black community and the republican congressman at the time would not even accept a free membership to the black business network where he could get a discount for purchasing products and services from black businesses.

I don't know the details of your personal experience, I only know that Donald Trump is a businessman who sees problems as opportunities. Black unemployment and underemployment especially in the cities is unacceptable and he is working to change that. But he needs to demonstrate progress not just talk about it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I understand the Federal Appeals COURT made the decision, I just don't agree with it.

Of course there's voter fraud. There are documented cases of voter fraud across the country, including 15 cases in North Carolina between 1986 and 2017.

If the measures in the law were implemented then it would have reduced the chances of voter fraud. They just chose to interpret it as voter suppression. Problem is, there's nothing in the law that would suppress minority voting.

Whether or not voter fraud is as pervasive as some claim, one fraudulent vote is one too many. We've been told since grade school that the right to vote is sacrosanct, that each vote is important and each American's patriotic duty. "One man, one vote" has been the rallying cry for those fighting for voting rights here and in South Africa and is a principle upon which the government redistricts areas to make voter representation more fair, i.e., to make each vote count.

If each vote truly does count as we've been told then, as I said, one fraudulent vote is one too many. If we were to compromise that principle for the convenience of a few, we might as well quit lecturing on the importance of exercising that right.

The concern is that you chase away more legitimate voters than you prevent illegal voters

It is a trade off not worth making

The obvious question becomes: Why would it chase away legitimate voters?

People who were born in this country and have been voting for years but have problems in their birth records, name changes, clerical errors in their records

I've heard the argument before about difficulties with birth certificates but the question for me is: If minorities have a disproportionate number of problems with birth certificates, why is this so and why are they not addressing that issue? If they have more clerical errors on their BCs, why is that so? If one gets a name change, it's his/her responsibility to apply for a new birth certificate. Are they not doing this?

You need a birth certificate to get a driver's license, register for school, get a passport, enroll in social security, get a job, etc., etc. If all these people have problems with their birth certificates, how are they getting these things?

Well, not everything in life is hunky dory

Some people are born in broken families, bounce around between relatives or foster homes, some were not born in hospitals, change names as they grow up.......documentation does not always follow

These kinds of problems can be remedied by the people themselves. They can do something to reduce broken families, determine where their children are born, stay on top of documentation, etc. Neither the government, the Republican party or white people are going to do these things for them. For that matter, neither is the Democratic party.

I was just lectured by ATL the other day about white and black poverty. The impression I got from that was that he was saying that black poverty is no worse than white poverty. If that is the case, it begs two questions: 1.) Then why is the handling of birth certificates and other documentation in minority communities seemingly so lackadaisical compared to other communities? 2.) If black poverty is no worse than white poverty then what do they expect the Republican party to do for them?

Why don’t we do this. ......
Help people get adequate documentation for voting. Once 99 percent of the people have documentation acceptable to Republicans, we can require it to vote

That's a very good question. Another question is: Why hasn't it been done before now?

 

[Cellblock2429]

I didn't say we hold it sacred, I said it was what we were taught. Besides, voting is a right. The 15th Amendment says precisely that. More specifically, it says neither the federal nor state government shall deny or abridge the right to vote based on race or color.

The 15th Amendment presumes a Right; it does not and cannot (under a dejure interpretation of our Constitution) grant one.

U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're exactly right. The Constitution does not grant Rights. The Constitution can guarantees the basic Rights found in the first ten Amendments aka the Bill of Rights. Remember what the United States Supreme Court said in the Cruikshank decision:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

When you have the United States Supreme Court saying that your Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, you should take them at their word.

Now, is there a "right" to vote? Well if you have a God given, inherent, unalienable Right to vote, then ANYONE can vote... citizen, non - citizen. You do realize that isn't correct though. Right?

So, the government grants privileges, calls them "rights" and leaves us to squabble over semantics.

The constitution damn sure granted whites rights. But now suddenly it des not grant rifgs wgen yu want t make excuses

15 cases of vote fraud in 31 years means once every 2 years they may find a case of fraud. The chances of such fraud are small. There is no reason for additional laws to stop it.

There are no less than 1132 documented cases of voter fraud from 1986 to 2017, 983 of which ended in criminal convictions. Besides, if it doesn't make much of a difference either way, why fight it?

/——/ And what about Chicago dead voters? 2 Investigators: Chicago Voters Cast Ballots From Beyond The Grave

 

[rightwinger]

Tucker Carlson? The king of disingenuous and fake news. LOL!

Tucker Carlson always has the deer in the headlights look on his face...

At least he dumped the stupid bow tie

The use of foreign born blacks to give the appearance of proportional diversity is a real problem.


By doing this, they create the illusion of successful diversity.


Thus discouraging real, honest discussion about the failure of the current policies.


And what we need to actually do to improve things.

He did have a stupid bow tie, but still makes that

Comments about blacks on USMB are representative of the true feelings of conservatives. In public conservatives hide their racism with code words. But on an anonymous message board, we see how they really feel

1. The people on this site are a very NON representative slice of the public. Of all my friends, I am the only one I know to spend much time of sites like this.

2. Most of the conservatives on this site are NOT racist. They are only "racist" in the definition of not wallowing in white guilt.

3. You are speaking to IM2, one of the biggest racists on this site.


4. What do you think of the actual claim, ie that Steel was appointed to increase diversity? Do you believe it? Do you think, if true, that it was right or wrong to do so?


5. And this deserves it's own point. What do you think of people that would attack republicans for not having diverse appointments and then attack them for appointing someone to be more diverse?

Steele was a shallow attempt to counteract Obama

Look! We got blacks too

Didn’t hide the fact that Republicans had only elected six blacks to Congress in the previous hundred years

Maybe. I don't know his background. He might have earned it based on his previous work.


But what if he did not, and the accusation is true.


Is that not the type of shit that you libs are always saying we need to do?


WTF, is this? Attacking us for supposedly following your advice?


Seriously? You don't see anything worth commenting on here?

Nobody is telling you to go find a token

Republicans need to actively recruit and groom minorities and women for higher office. The current machine seems centered on Christian, white males

So, "token" is someone that is there PURELY based on skin color? Is that how you are using the term?


Steele does not seem to be that. I saw him on several TV programs. He seemed competent and pretty much exactly what I would expect from a GOP establishment.


So, Like I asked,



WTF, is this? Attacking us for supposedly following your advice?

If not for the candidacy of Obama , Steele would not have been selected

Token

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I didn't say we hold it sacred, I said it was what we were taught. Besides, voting is a right. The 15th Amendment says precisely that. More specifically, it says neither the federal nor state government shall deny or abridge the right to vote based on race or color.

The 15th Amendment presumes a Right; it does not and cannot (under a dejure interpretation of our Constitution) grant one.

U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're exactly right. The Constitution does not grant Rights. The Constitution can guarantees the basic Rights found in the first ten Amendments aka the Bill of Rights. Remember what the United States Supreme Court said in the Cruikshank decision:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

When you have the United States Supreme Court saying that your Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, you should take them at their word.

Now, is there a "right" to vote? Well if you have a God given, inherent, unalienable Right to vote, then ANYONE can vote... citizen, non - citizen. You do realize that isn't correct though. Right?

So, the government grants privileges, calls them "rights" and leaves us to squabble over semantics.

The constitution damn sure granted whites rights. But now suddenly it des not grant rifgs wgen yu want t make excuses

15 cases of vote fraud in 31 years means once every 2 years they may find a case of fraud. The chances of such fraud are small. There is no reason for additional laws to stop it.

The “fraud” republicans are trying to stop is exceedingly rare

Someone trying to vote under someone else’s name.

You need to know a registered voters name. Show up and fake their signature on the ballot and hope it is not noticed. Then you have to hope that person has not already voted and you will be caught

All to cast one vote

True, but that's not the only form that voter fraud takes. It also takes the form of fraudulent use of absentee ballots; ineligible voting; buying votes; duplicate voting; false registrations; altering vote counts, etc.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What Trump said is irrelevant. These ideas do not conform to the Republican platform on immigration.

Trump is A REPUBLICAN and he is POTUS.His ideas absolutely do "conform" to those of his party, and are totally relevant

No, they do not and they are not. As a Republican who has conversed with may other Republicans on the matter of immigration, I can tell you most assuredly that the conservative position on immigration is merely to stop illegal immigration. I personally will not be held responsible for any stupid comments made by Trump or the KKK or any racists.

I don't know you, so therefore, how could I hold you responsible for anything?

You are, in essence, holding the entire Republican party responsible for the stupid shit Trumps says and does.

I think that judging from the captive audience that Trump seems to mesmerize, there are more of those than not who agree with his "shithole country" position on immigration.

When you say "captive audience", how many are we talking about?

I am not holding the ENTIRE Republican party responsible for him what he says and does. Obviously, you don't agree with him 100%.

What I DID state was I believe "more than less, in the Republican party agree with him"

No. The typical conservative is only concerned with illegal immigration. In fact, whatever stupid comments he makes today, that was the platform Trump campaigned on. During the campaign he never suggested in any way that he had a problem with immigrants or that he wanted to stop or slow it down.

As far as his captive audience? I would say angry, predominately white, millennials.

Why 41 percent of white millennials voted for Trump

First of all, I didn't ask who, I asked how many. Secondly, millennials only comprise a part of the Republican party.

I can't read the article because they won't let me see it unless I subscribe.

 

[GreenBean]

Apparently you don't know the facts - otherwise you would use them to either formulate a cohesive opinon outside your warped little racist mindset or to offer an intelligent debate - you have done neither - - you're a racist, you're a hypocrite and you're a dullard incapable of seeing anything outside your narrow black and white tunnel vision.

The racist mindset belongs to you, and I do know the facts. You've tried the same old trick. I am a racist because I do not agree with your racist views. You are the one incapable of intelligent debate.

Dude. Greenbean just beat you like a red headed step child.


I'm not sure if you are really so stupid that you can't see that. or are just that dishonest.


But, ouch.

Green bean is a flaming racist
Hard for him to beat anyone

I don't know him that well, but he certainly just beat the snot out of IM2, who I do know and who is the hugest flaming racist.

I've whipped your ass like a government mule just like I did green bean..

A Legend in your own Mind - problem is people are laughing AT you - not WITH you and sadly you'll never know it. Probable cause is you been bitch smacked a few too many times - Permanenet Brain Damage I would surmize - on the left side nothing is right and on the right side not much is left.

 

[rightwinger]

The 15th Amendment presumes a Right; it does not and cannot (under a dejure interpretation of our Constitution) grant one.

U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're exactly right. The Constitution does not grant Rights. The Constitution can guarantees the basic Rights found in the first ten Amendments aka the Bill of Rights. Remember what the United States Supreme Court said in the Cruikshank decision:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

When you have the United States Supreme Court saying that your Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, you should take them at their word.

Now, is there a "right" to vote? Well if you have a God given, inherent, unalienable Right to vote, then ANYONE can vote... citizen, non - citizen. You do realize that isn't correct though. Right?

So, the government grants privileges, calls them "rights" and leaves us to squabble over semantics.

The constitution damn sure granted whites rights. But now suddenly it des not grant rifgs wgen yu want t make excuses

15 cases of vote fraud in 31 years means once every 2 years they may find a case of fraud. The chances of such fraud are small. There is no reason for additional laws to stop it.

The “fraud” republicans are trying to stop is exceedingly rare

Someone trying to vote under someone else’s name.

You need to know a registered voters name. Show up and fake their signature on the ballot and hope it is not noticed. Then you have to hope that person has not already voted and you will be caught

All to cast one vote

True, but that's not the only form that voter fraud takes. It also takes the form of fraudulent use of absentee ballots; ineligible voting; buying votes; duplicate voting; false registrations; altering vote counts, etc.

How does ID stop those frauds?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're exactly right. The Constitution does not grant Rights. The Constitution can guarantees the basic Rights found in the first ten Amendments aka the Bill of Rights. Remember what the United States Supreme Court said in the Cruikshank decision:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

When you have the United States Supreme Court saying that your Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, you should take them at their word.

Now, is there a "right" to vote? Well if you have a God given, inherent, unalienable Right to vote, then ANYONE can vote... citizen, non - citizen. You do realize that isn't correct though. Right?

So, the government grants privileges, calls them "rights" and leaves us to squabble over semantics.

The constitution damn sure granted whites rights. But now suddenly it des not grant rifgs wgen yu want t make excuses

15 cases of vote fraud in 31 years means once every 2 years they may find a case of fraud. The chances of such fraud are small. There is no reason for additional laws to stop it.

The “fraud” republicans are trying to stop is exceedingly rare

Someone trying to vote under someone else’s name.

You need to know a registered voters name. Show up and fake their signature on the ballot and hope it is not noticed. Then you have to hope that person has not already voted and you will be caught

All to cast one vote

True, but that's not the only form that voter fraud takes. It also takes the form of fraudulent use of absentee ballots; ineligible voting; buying votes; duplicate voting; false registrations; altering vote counts, etc.

How does ID stop those frauds?

/——-/ Of course it doesn’t stop all but it stops many, as if you had to be told that.

 

[GreenBean]

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're exactly right. The Constitution does not grant Rights. The Constitution can guarantees the basic Rights found in the first ten Amendments aka the Bill of Rights. Remember what the United States Supreme Court said in the Cruikshank decision:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

When you have the United States Supreme Court saying that your Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, you should take them at their word.

Now, is there a "right" to vote? Well if you have a God given, inherent, unalienable Right to vote, then ANYONE can vote... citizen, non - citizen. You do realize that isn't correct though. Right?

So, the government grants privileges, calls them "rights" and leaves us to squabble over semantics.

The constitution damn sure granted whites rights. But now suddenly it des not grant rifgs wgen yu want t make excuses

15 cases of vote fraud in 31 years means once every 2 years they may find a case of fraud. The chances of such fraud are small. There is no reason for additional laws to stop it.

The “fraud” republicans are trying to stop is exceedingly rare

Someone trying to vote under someone else’s name.

You need to know a registered voters name. Show up and fake their signature on the ballot and hope it is not noticed. Then you have to hope that person has not already voted and you will be caught

All to cast one vote

True, but that's not the only form that voter fraud takes. It also takes the form of fraudulent use of absentee ballots; ineligible voting; buying votes; duplicate voting; false registrations; altering vote counts, etc.

How does ID stop those frauds?

Why is the Sky Blue ?