Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Right now you can only discriminate against, threaten, or intimidate white voters.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Right now you can only discriminate against, threaten, or intimidate white voters.

---

And there's nothing wrong with that, apparently.

And before the usual suspects start moaning and bitching about how innocuous it is for these 2 thugs holding police batons in their hands( not merely having them, or in a holster, but already drawn _ and how this is all manner of trivial, think about what the reaction would be if the scene was just a little different. 2 white guys, in fake military gear, or better yet, in Klansman robes, carrying a baton, greeting votes as they came to the polls.

Damn straight there'd be hell to pay, and that case would have been pushed by the DOJ.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
If they were carrying guns and were white, you'd call them patriots.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Eric Holder has never prosecuted any cases of racism against whites by blacks because he says it doesn't exist, there's no such thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
If they were carrying guns and were white, you'd call them patriots.

---

You're a fucking idiot. I made it clear as day that ANY intimidation at the polls, be it by white , black, brown, or paisley should be unacceptable.

---

Quote:

---

...think about what the reaction would be if the scene was just a little different. 2 white guys, in fake military gear, or better yet, in Klansman robes, carrying a baton, greeting votes as they came to the polls.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
One of the issues with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is that its application is based, as noted in the cite by SGG, on voting records from 1972, at the latest. Considering the changes in demographics in the last 40 years, and the changes in voter registration and turnout, it'd seem that we should at least revisit current statistics to see where discrimination might be currently occurring, rather than where it was in 1972.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by penquin11:
Hey look, an issue that true liberals and true conservatives should both be concerned about. From the liberal perspective I would be worried about whether this would allow voting discrimination, and from the conservative perspective I fear that this gives our large government yet another way to limit the number of people who can vote.

"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Thanx for noting this, Shiny. As I mentioned elsewhere, this news rocked me back on my heels like little else, I just couldn't believe it and it's pretty much the final straw for me where our government is headed, and especially what has happened to the one slightly less partisan branch of our government, the Supremes. They are no longer anything but a bad joke and a conscience-free tool of the right, and that won't change for a long time to come, given their makeup.

Given the assault on voting rights has never stopped, and even increased just the last two elections, that they will probably do away with ANY encumberance on voting suppression is beyond belief. It just shows me where our country continues to go, and how savvy the right has been in getting the power where they need to have it to further their agenda.

It makes me sicker than almost all the other disgusting things that have been tried, been done and are being done to destroy the very heart of what America stands for and what the vast MAJORITY of Americans believe in. It only takes a small minority bent on their own agenda with the willingness to do unconscionable things, and a lot of ignorant, non-thinking people, to make this country into what it is fast becoming. I'm pretty sure I'll be long gone before things turn around and I want no part of it in the meantime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Of course conservative dirtbags want the law repealed - it was instrumental in stopping several attempts to disenfranchise voters last year alone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I think it's high time we strike it down and move on. What did Scaliaa say ? " Perpetual racial entitlement " ? I think he's spot on. This tactic of the Left, of focusing on the word ' disenfranchisement ' is ridiculous. It's lost all meaning, much like over use of 'racism'. It's used when ever things don't go the way some minority doesn't like...



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Right now you can only discriminate against, threaten, or intimidate white voters.

H

---

And there's nothing wrong with that, apparently.

And before the usual suspects start moaning and bitching about how innocuous it is for these 2 thugs holding police batons in their hands( not merely having them, or in a holster, but already drawn _ and how this is all manner of trivial, think about what the reaction would be if the scene was just a little different. 2 white guys, in fake military gear, or better yet, in Klansman robes, carrying a baton, greeting votes as they came to the polls.

Damn straight there'd be hell to pay, and that case would have been pushed by the DOJ.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

FLASHBACK: DEMOCRATS WORKED HARD TO DISQUALIFY OVERSEAS MILITARY BALLOTS IN 2000 RECOUNT

In 2000, the nation's politics hung in the balance of a recount fight in Florida. George W. Bush had beaten Al Gore by a few hundred votes in the seminal swing state, and Democrats went all-in to reverse this result and hand the presidency to Gore. One of the lawyers hired by the Democrats during the recount fight was Mark Herron, how drafted a memo detailing how to disqualify military absentee ballots. (Memo is below.) His work had an immediate affect, as recalled by Bill Sammon in 2001:

The main battlegound was Duval County, home to more military families than any other county in Florida. Duval had more absentee ballots from overseas than any other county - 618 of 3,500 cast statewide. Five Gore lawyers showed up at the elections office at 9 a.m. Friday to disqualify as many of those ballots as possible.

Tom Bishop, one of the Republican lawyers, was incensed as he watched the Democrats, armed with the smoking-gun memo, blatantly go about disqualify large numbers of military ballots.

"They had their little cheat sheet they were using, and they objected on every single possible ground they could, no matter how spurious," Bishop told Sammon. "It was so bad that there was rolling of the eyes by even some of the Democrats there who were watching their lawyers work."

Before Nov. 17, the Duval supervisor of elections compared signatures on ballot envelopes against signature cards on file. He could find only two absentee ballots that could not be included because the signatures did not match.
"But now the Democrats insisted that they be allowed to compare all signatures, one by one. For seven tedious hours, they bitterly argued that signatures on more than 100 envelopes did not precisely match the signature cards - although some envelopes had been signed by sailors on rolling seas in hostile situations,” Sammon wrote.
"You could clearly tell it was the same person´s signature, but they would object because it didn´t have a certain curlicue or didn´t have a certain twist or it was smaller," Bishop told him.

The Democrat lawyers sought to disqualify military ballots that had no overseas postmark on the grounds that some voters might have marked their ballots a day or two after the election and then mailed them in.

The Democrats' efforts to suppress the military vote weren't confined to one county. From an Associated Press account:

In some counties, half or nearly all the overseas ballots were rejected, many of them military ballots that apparently didn't have postmarks.
Orange County, for example, rejected 117 of its 147 overseas ballots. In Hillsborough County, 74 of the 135 ballots were rejected after Democrats raised concerns about postmark or signature problems. Alachua County rejected half of the 56 ballots it received. St. Lucie rejected 13 of 14 and Lake County, all five.

"The party of the man who wants to be the next commander in chief is trying to throw out the votes of the men and women he will be commanding," charged Jim Post, a Republican lawyer in Duval County, where 107 ballots were rejected.

Thomas Spencer, a Miami attorney for Bush, said the GOP legal team would weigh whether to sue this weekend. "One of the problems with those ballots is it is so difficult under Florida and federal law that you almost have to be a rocket scientist to comply," he said.

Earlier this week, Mark Herron, a Tallahassee lawyer helping shepherd Democratic presidential election lawsuits through the local courts, sent a five-page letter to Democratic attorneys throughout Florida giving them tips on how to lodge protests against overseas ballots.

Such protests had to be filed before the ballot was taken out of the envelope. The letter focused on protesting military ballots.

Herron said he was retained by the DNC on election night.

No matter how the Democrats and the media try to spin this, the party has actively sought to suppress the votes of the men and women in the military. The very fact that a memo was circulated, explaining, in detail, how to disqualify military ballots should be enough evidence of the party's checkered history with military voting.

Don't believe what the left and the media say. Believe what the Democrats have done

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/05/flashback-dems-disq
ualified-military-ballots-in-2000

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Jesus, rappy is so deranged now, he considers winning the popular vote to be stealing.

Wait, this is nothing new, he's been crazy for, well - ever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Jesus, rappy is so deranged now, he considers winning the popular vote to be stealing.

Wait, this is nothing new, he's been crazy for, well - ever.

---

No, I consider stealing to be stealing.

The office of the President is not , has not, been decided by the " popular " vote.

The Founders knew what they were doing.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

---