Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

So he also avoided committing actual voting fraud, too, right? He *could* have voted fraudulently (a felony for anyone who tries it), but he didn't.

Y'know, I have a gun, and there's a bank on the corner. Clearly all guns should be outlawed, because robbery is just so easy. Anyone with a gun could do it!

This is the logic applied here. Because someone COULD do this - and change one single vote, but only if they don't get caught - we have to work harder to disenfranchise people, lest someone try to vote for them when the right doesn't want them voting at all!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wait a sec - was THAT why you repeatedly called me a "sick fuck"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, read the words and see if you think I'm really advocating for tight gun regulations. Pointing out that this is the logic being applied by the right in the photo ID discussion, and how much they claim to hate it when others use this kind of argument to try to regulate guns isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of such regulation or such tactics, but it's easy to see how Geezer gets so confused, since he can't seem to follow basic concepts very well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wait a sec - was THAT why you repeatedly called me a "sick fuck"?

---

Been down to the grey file cabinets again, Mike?

---

Quote:

---

How long ago was that?

Nine months?

A year?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah, then you agree with me that tighter voting regulations aren't going to help anyone or stop any fraud.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I guess I have to ask:

Is the average memory span of most people these days analogous to that of a gnat? Is it considered remarkable that someone might actually REMEMBER something, rather than have to go look it up or research it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I guess I have to ask:

Is the average memory span of most people these days analogous to that of a gnat? Is it considered remarkable that someone might actually REMEMBER something, rather than have to go look it up or research it?

---

So you can remember every time you've insulted someone? You must have quite a memory, or else a strange concept of what's important enough to remember.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

And being caught, you start with the personal insults.

---

Of course, you've shown us that the better option, when caught, is to pretend the thread never existed in the first place. :p

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Then I guess you call people "a sick fuck" often enough that it's not even something you'd remember, right?

---

Quote:

---

"Whether they help anyone will depend on whether requiring likely Democratic voters to get some sort of photo I.D. is just too, too onerous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You've noticed that I seem to have scared BDN away again too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

"Whether they help anyone will depend on whether requiring likely Democratic voters to get some sort of photo I.D. is just too, too onerous.

---

Seriously, GEEZER?

The biggest vote fraud ever committed was with the electronic vote, the second biggest was the excision of valid voters off the voter rolls, and the third is redistricting. That's all at the State Scy level, and no "voter ID" law is going to fix that. And the last big vote fraud was committed by the Supreme Court. Because, as was widely attributed to Stalin: "It's not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes." Or maybe that was Rove who said it.

If you guys want to go on and on vote fraud, start with the big stuff. You can fix the little stuff later. Sheesh. What tools.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
The issue of this thread is voter fraud by false identification.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
The issue of this thread is voter fraud by false identification.

---

Which is pretty much non-existent and by it's nature can't be wide spread nor large enough to affect elections.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:

Which is pretty much what I was saying.

However, that doesn't stop both sides from trying to make political capital out of it: the Republicans by raising the specter of masses of illegals fraudulently voting (Democratic, of course), and the Democrats trying to say that poor folks who want to vote (who are apparently all Democrats) will be disuaded in large numbers by being required to spend an afternoon getting a photo I.D.

---

Quote:

---

Justice: Evidence of bias in Texas voter ID law

AUSTIN, Texas — The U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday there is substantial evidence Texas' voter identification law will discriminate against minorities.

The department's assertion came in papers filed in a Washington federal court explaining why Texas lawmakers should have to testify and turn over their communications regarding the law to a panel of judges considering whether the law can be implemented by the November election.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has argued lawmakers should not have to reveal internal deliberations.

"These discovery requests represent an unwarranted federal intrusion into the operations of the Texas Legislature," Abbott said in his effort to prevent U.S. attorneys from acquiring the paperwork they requested and interviewing lawmakers and their staff. He argued lawmakers can only do their work if they are confident their deliberation cannot be brought up in court.

But the Justice Department says no such privilege exists and that evidence presented in the case so far shows 600,000 people will be unable to vote if the law is enforced and that minorities would be impacted the most. The department said the court needs more information to determine whether lawmakers intended the law to discriminate against minority voters.

"The record available to the United States at this point already contains significant circumstantial evidence that could support a finding of discriminatory intent," the papers filed Wednesday said.

Texas law currently requires a voter to present a registration card or a photo identification card to vote. The law passed last year would require everyone to present an official photo ID before voting.

Texas is one of nine states, most of them in the South, required to submit all changes to electoral law for federal approval, either by the Justice Department or the federal court in Washington. Texas has sued in federal court to have the voter ID law approved in time for the November general election.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

"Rush is completely right, and any woman who wants to be responsible about practicing safe sex is a whore and a slut!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

"Rush is completely right, and any woman who wants to be responsible about practicing safe sex is a whore and a slut!"

---

You're a liar. I never said that. Rush never even said that.

You think that you can interject a complete, 100% fabricated lie like that, in the midsts of out of context comments, you can get away with it ?

I suppose you do, so shoddy are your ethics and so mind numbingly twisted is your zealotry.



It seems you've found ways to keep threads going, my simply making up unbelievable lies, in hopes others who have far more respect and dignity for their word will have to respond. But for someone who altered their own reply, simply to say they never said something as you have done, honor and self respect clearly are foreign concepts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Niki

For you, I understand that repeating a lie often enough, makes it believable.

But for me? Not so much.

---

Again with the ironic funny overload.


Give it a rest, Rappy. My sides are aching from the laughter.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

More of Rappy's ironic overload - these are things and positions he's actually held:



"Mission Accomplished!"

"WMD!"

"We'll be greeted as liberators!"

"The economy is on fire!"

"95% of Americans pay no taxes!"

"Rush is completely right, and any woman who wants to be responsible about practicing safe sex is a whore and a slut!"

"Corrine Brown said Trayvon was hunted down like a rabid dog!"

"Nobody edited the ACORN or Shirley Sherrod tapes!"


Repeat as necessary, Rappy.




"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

---

Quote:

---

He's anything BUT a 'lunatic',and specifically on THIS matter, I fully support him AND his views.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

specifically on THIS matter, I fully support him AND his views.

---

Hello,

His specific views are that the woman is a slut and should post pornographic videos of herself.

Are you sure you support him and his views on this matter?

--Anthony

---

As for the 'slut' part... I'm thinking back to what Inara said.

" The term applies "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Your failure to accept reality is staggering. That was Rush's argument, on purpose or because he's a moron I don't know, but it does not change what he said and said and said for three days.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Your failure to accept reality is staggering. That was Rush's argument, on purpose or because he's a moron I don't know, but it does not change what he said and said and said for three days.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You put the comment in quotes, indicating that I said it. I never did. Nor was it in any way an accurate description of ant position I have held, at any time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, we ALL know it's not false. WE remember what you said better than you do. Please, for the love of god, shut up. You're looking more and more irrational with every post. Just... just stop.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, we ALL know it's not false. WE remember what you said better than you do. Please, for the love of god, shut up. You're looking more and more irrational with every post. Just... just stop.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, we ALL know it's not false. WE remember what you said better than you do. Please, for the love of god, shut up. You're looking more and more irrational with every post. Just... just stop.

---

And the more desperate he gets, the more name-calling he resorts to, because he can't find any facts that support his claims.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, I hope to god that you're learning something from this. Over and over, with depressing regularity, your ideas are either flattened by facts which become obvious to everyone, or they bite themselves (and you) in the ass because they contradict each other. You might want to stop believing right wing entertainers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, we ALL know it's not false. WE remember what you said better than you do. Please, for the love of god, shut up. You're looking more and more irrational with every post. Just... just stop.

---

It's 100 % false, and you know it. I know me far better than you ever will. If you can PROVE those were my views, then by all means, post it. Or YOU shut the fuck up.

---

Quote:

---

On Rush calling a woman a "slut":

He's anything BUT a 'lunatic',and specifically on THIS matter, I fully support him AND his views.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

specifically on THIS matter, I fully support him AND his views.

---

Hello,

His specific views are that the woman is a slut and should post pornographic videos of herself.

Are you sure you support him and his views on this matter?

--Anthony

---

As for the 'slut' part... I'm thinking back to what Inara said.

" The term applies "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You've noticed that I seem to have scared BDN away again too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Quote:

---

evidence presented in the case so far shows 600,000 people will be unable to vote if the law is enforced and that minorities would be impacted the most

---

Where's Geezer to argue that point? That many people WOULD be enough to impact an election, wouldn't it??

Quote:

---

already contains significant circumstantial evidence that could support a finding of discriminatory intent

---

My question, once again, is if it would have no effect, WHY DO IT? Logically, politicians/legislators rarely do something they think won't have some sort of effect...if this wouldn't (despite evidence to the contrary), why would they bother? And why is it that for the most part it's ONLY states who have a record of suppressing the vote of minorities in the past? SO MUCH SO that they now have to get permission from the fed to change their voting laws. None of that means anything to you?

Spin my ass. There are FACTS supporting my argument; where are yours?

I don't know if the Atlanta Journal Constitution is a "liberally-biased" news source or not, but the Photo ID law is required in Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana and Florida, among others, according to the National Conference of State Legislators ( http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx). If you look at their map there, and add Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas (currently in the works), it's obvious that, for the most part, it's the South and a few other Republican states which have or are trying to implement it. The two coasts, on the other hand, with the exception of Pennsylvania, have either no voter ID laws at all, or non-photo ID requirements.

As to "onerous":

Quote:

---

Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-
are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

---

On the other hand, in 10 years in Texas, there have been just 100 federal prosecutions and 50 state prosecutions of voter ID law (Same). How does that add up to "just spin"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You've noticed that I seem to have scared BDN away again too.

---

Hey Kwicko, I am still waiting for your response. I understand you have spent considerable time and energy engaging Auraptor. But please spare a few seconds to answer my simple questions. I would appreciate it greatly, thank-you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Possibly the most facile thing you've ever said - which is a saying a lot.

---

So facile that I seemed to have scared Kwicko away. Oh well, I'm sure he will simply pop up in another thread to spread his wisdom.

---

Quote:

---

It's 100 % false, and you know it. I know me far better than you ever will. If you can PROVE those were my views, then by all means, post it. Or YOU shut the fuck up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
kwickie - I know you're not too bright. However, there is a difference in Rush mocking one woman, Sandra Fluke, and calling HER a slut for parading herself in front of members of Congress( all Democrats ) and wanting govt mandated contraception, and saying that ALL women who use contraception , for any reason, as 'sluts'.

Two entirely different issues.

See, this is the intentional bait-and-switch routine the Left uses. And I for one am sick of it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM: Please take megadoses of B12, it might help.

---

Quote:

---

So... extended quotes FROM YOU, in which you seem to be very clearly stating YOUR views. If you agree that's what you said, is that sufficient? Yes, or no? If "no", then I'm not going to bother because if you won't even stand behind your own posts, then nothing you say is worth anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're not too bright. I get that. But at the VERY least, get the facts straight. He didn't say it for 3 days. And his position was spot on, that Sandra Fluke , putting herself on parade, some how thinks she has some sort of a RIGHT to other people's money, so that she can get govt mandated contraceptive care. She doesn't have that right. Not to my money, or anyone else. Rush crossed the line in calling her a slut, but that was his attempted try at comedy. Being absurd to show absurdity. Bill Maher, did far, FAR worse, and Obama still takes his money ( Or refuses to call for it to be returned ) Hypocrites, all of you, on the Left, for organizing and trying to boycott Rush, but say next to nothing about Maher and his vile comments.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
It was not about other people's money.

---

Quote:

---

So... extended quotes FROM YOU, in which you seem to be very clearly stating YOUR views. If you agree that's what you said, is that sufficient? Yes, or no? If "no", then I'm not going to bother because if you won't even stand behind your own posts, then nothing you say is worth anything.- Signy

They weren't quotes. Kwickie even said so. Can't you read ? I can understand how you'd THINK they were quotes, as Kwickie posted them in standard quote style, but they weren't quotes, nor were they MY views. I'll accept your apology now.- rappy

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
kwickie - I know you're not too bright. However, there is a difference in Rush mocking one woman, Sandra Fluke, and calling HER a slut for parading herself in front of members of Congress( all Democrats ) and wanting govt mandated contraception, and saying that ALL women who use contraception , for any reason, as 'sluts'.

Two entirely different issues.

See, this is the intentional bait-and-switch routine the Left uses. And I for one am sick of it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

So... extended quotes FROM YOU, in which you seem to be very clearly stating YOUR views. If you agree that's what you said, is that sufficient? Yes, or no? If "no", then I'm not going to bother because if you won't even stand behind your own posts, then nothing you say is worth anything.

---

They weren't quotes. Kwickie even said so. Can't you read ? I can understand how you'd THINK they were quotes, as Kwickie posted them in standard quote style, but they weren't quotes, nor were they MY views.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

So... extended quotes FROM YOU, in which you seem to be very clearly stating YOUR views. If you agree that's what you said, is that sufficient? Yes, or no? If "no", then I'm not going to bother because if you won't even stand behind your own posts, then nothing you say is worth anything.- Signy

They weren't quotes. Kwickie even said so. Can't you read ? I can understand how you'd THINK they were quotes, as Kwickie posted them in standard quote style, but they weren't quotes, nor were they MY views. I'll accept your apology now.- rappy

---

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Hey, I know it can get a mite confusing, but apparently your reading comprehension isn't quite up to snuff. I was offering to come up with extended quotes FROM YOU in which you express the very views you say aren't yours. That's why I was asking that IF I came up with extended quotes FROM YOU, would that be sufficient for you to own up to your views? Or would you disavow what you said previously and try to weasel out of your own statements? 'Cause, yanno, I played this game with you before more than once, and all you did was claim that what you said wasn't what you meant (altho it seemed clear to everyone else), or that your statements were somehow taken out of context.

Anyway, here's the deal and all I need is a yes or no answer: IF I come up with extended quotes from you on any or all of the above topics that Kwicko was referring to, would you (1) Own up to the fact that you made the statements and (2) Agree to the common interpretation which follows, which would be just a restatement of your post? Or would you once again try to weasel out of everything you've said in the past, cherry-picking facts and re-defining words to suit your needs?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are you saying that you, like Rappy, hold your own behavior to a different standard than you hold others?

How often do I have to post to satisfy your needs?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And there you have it. It was ALWAYS about other people's money. That's the sole point of defeating ObamaCare !!!

Congratulations. You've fully bought into the Left wing's demagoguery and trap of distort, distract and deception.

---