Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the ground that it's discrimination for requiring a Photo ID to vote --- if Eric Holder wins, SCOTUS will also be saying that requiring a photo ID for exercising your gun rights is discrimination?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/4/2012 4:15 PM, Fair Play wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 11:34:37 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>> news:d6jo1814p7sab3ib1...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:28:03 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>>>> news:hnfo185lttddk0kqk...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:35:06 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:gt5o18t61a559fjq1...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:07:23 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:fajl18tsliog7jr8p...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:34:08 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/2/2012 1:08 PM, Fair Play wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:27:26 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you talking about our Constitution? The organic law for
>>>>>>>>>>>> our entire country? Do you feel it should not apply anymore?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a question of feeling. It obviously doesn't act as
>>>>>>>>>>> the "organic law for our entire country", no matter how
>>>>>>>>>>> strongly libertarians think it should.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 9-11 and the Patriot act and it's subsequent extensions
>>>>>>>>>>> changed
>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps what you and others are trying to explain is that our
>>>>>>>>>> Constitution is a very brief, minimal and incomplete framework
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> governance of our country, not the complete and final blueprint
>>>>>>>>>> for all governmental operations, the beginning and the end, the
>>>>>>>>>> alpha
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> the omega, all that is necessary for governance. Nor is it
>>>> perfect,
>>>>>>>>>> or a suitable icon for mindless idolatry. After all, we've
>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> necessary to amend the document numerous times already, and
>>>>>>>>>> there never seems to be anything close to universal agreement
>>>>>>>>>> about what
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> means, what it requires, what it prohibits, or how to best
>>>> effectuate
>>>>>>>>>> those requirements. Moreover, our understanding of what those
>>>>>>>>>> requirements actually are, typically but not always expressed
>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>> the Supreme Court, keeps changing and evolving over time,
>>>>>>>>>> sometimes quite drastically. In summary, very few questions can
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>> decisively
>>>>>>>>>> or permanently answered merely by reference to the bare text
>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The mocking was in reference to the mindless idolatry you
>>>>>>>>> mention..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Elderly zealots with a copy of the constitution in one hand and
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>> gun
>>>>>>>>> in the other, with tea bags hanging from their hats do not trump
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court no matter how loud they shout.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are they doing that, in your opinion, is unconstitutional?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What?
>>>>>>> Where does that come from?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I fully support their right to congregate and express their views.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true.....and I have the right to ask them where those views
>>>>>> come from. That doesn't mean that I will get an answer. Most
>>>>>> likely I
>>>> won't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand the question.
>>>>
>>>> This comment below is what I was responding to:
>>>>
>>>> "The mocking was in reference to the mindless idolatry you mention..
>>>>
>>>> Elderly zealots with a copy of the constitution in one hand and a gun
>>>> in the other, with tea bags hanging from their hats do not trump the
>>>> Supreme Court no matter how loud they shout."
>>>>
>>>> 1) I don't know what mindless idolatry you were referring to...
>>>> probably my error.
>>>
>>> It was a very apt phrase Jeff M used to describe certain eccentric
>>> individuals who seem to use the constitution as a Bible or Koran
>>> to be interpreted as a supreme authority and guide on every area of
>>> life.
>>>
>>> Maybe you have to meet them to understand.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) It seemed to be a disparagement of those who believe in the
>>>> Constitution.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean what the rank and file members are doing in their
>>>>> demonstrations and rallies or what their billionaire leaders are up
>>>>> to?
>>>>
>>>> Seems I detect a bit of bias there......is that true? ;)
>>>
>>> lol
>>>
>>> Never, what on earth gave you that idea?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If the former then I don't think they are doing anything
>>>>> unconstitutional AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>> Good.
>>>>
>>>>> trying to stop folk from voting is a different story though.
>>>>
>>>> Who is trying to stop folks from voting? How are they doing it?
>>>
>>> Here's the most recent trick being attempted
>>>
>>> ""Without early voting in these last three days before Election Day,
>>> tens of thousands of citizens who would have otherwise exercised their
>>> right to vote during this time period, including the plaintiffs'
>>> members and supporters, may not be able to participate in future
>>> elections at all"
>>>
>>>
>>> Obama Campaign Issues First Election Law Challenge, Suing Ohio Over
>>> Early Voting
>>>
>>> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/364432/20120718/ohio-voting-registratio
>>> n-early-obama-campaign-laws.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> President Barack Obama's reelection campaign has sued Ohio over a law
>>> restricting early voting, arguing that the law discourages some
>>> Ohioans from being able to cast ballots.
>>>
>>> Democrats have been warning for months that a spate of new voting laws
>>> imposing new identification requirements, tightening registration
>>> rules and curtailing early voting -- nearly all of them passed by
>>> Republican legislatures and signed by Republican governors -- could
>>> skew the election.
>>>
>>> The Democratic National Committee vowed to counteract what its chair
>>> called an "assault on voting rights," and Attorney General Eric Holder
>>> has emerged as an outspoken critic of the new laws, recently likening
>>> a Texas voter ID law to a poll tax.
>>>
>>> Holder's Justice Department has sued to block implementation of
>>> several of those laws, but the Ohio lawsuit marks the first time
>>> president's reelection campaign has joined the fray. Under the Ohio
>>> law, military personnel and overseas voters are allowed to vote
>>> through the Monday preceding the election, which falls on a Tuesday,
>>> while others are prohibited from early in-person voting after the
>>> Friday before the election.
>>>
>>> The Obama campaign argued that the new law violates the Constitution's
>>> equal protection clause by extending early voting rights to only some
>>> voters.
>>>
>>> "This lawsuit seeks to treat all Ohio citizens equally under the law,"
>>> Bob Bauer, the attorney for Obama for America, the president's
>>> campaign committee, said in a conference call with reporters. "We want
>>> to restore the right of all to vote before Election Day."
>>>
>>> Driving the dispute is Ohio's role as a crucial swing state. Nearly a
>>> third of Ohioans voted before election day in 2008, when Obama won the
>>> perennial battleground en route to the presidency. The implications of
>>> a law restricting early voting in 2012 are not lost on the Obama
>>> campaign.
>>>
>>> "Without early voting in these last three days before Election Day,
>>> tens of thousands of citizens who would have otherwise exercised their
>>> right to vote during this time period, including the plaintiffs'
>>> members and supporters, may not be able to participate in future
>>> elections at all,"
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They argue the same crap over photo ID. I want to know who is voting in
>> our elections and that they are legally eligible to vote. To do any
>> different is to nullify my right to vote.
>
> You want to disenfranchise voters who don't have photo ID.
>
> Old folk who have voted for decades, finding themselves turned away
> at polling stations after waiting hours to try to vote?
>
> America already has one of the lowest participation rates in elections
> and you want to reduce the participation even further?
>
> The goal isn't to reduce non existent voter fraud but to prevent folk
> voting.
>
That would be why you need a PHOTO ID to buy a gun....


To get rid of the elderly buyers and lower 2nd amendment participation
and to prevent folks from owning and using their firearms.


But isn't Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the ground that it's discrimination
for requiring a Photo ID to vote. And doesn't that mean that if Eric
Holder wins that SCOTUS will also be saying that requiring a photo ID
for exercising your gun rights is discrimination?


*Rumination*

#40 - The truth is always the truth, it doesn't matter if it's
discovered by accident or by genius, it's always the truth.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

and to prevent folks from owning and using their firearms. You
described it well.

But isn't Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the grounds that it's

discrimination for requiring a Photo ID to vote. And doesn't that mean

that if Eric Holder wins, that SCOTUS will also be saying with that
ruling banning the States from requiring a photo ID being
unconstitutional. Then requiring a photo ID to exercise your gun rights
is also discrimination?


A right is a right.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 4, 3:55 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 4:15 PM, Fair Play wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 11:34:37 -0500, RD Sandman
> > <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>

> >> Fair Play <u...@example.com> wrote in

> >>news:d6jo1814p7sab3ib1...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:28:03 -0500, RD Sandman
> >>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>

> >>>> Fair Play <u...@example.com> wrote in

> >>>>news:hnfo185lttddk0kqk...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:35:06 -0500, RD Sandman
> >>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>

> >>>>>> Fair Play <u...@example.com> wrote in

> >>>>>>news:gt5o18t61a559fjq1...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:07:23 -0500, RD Sandman
> >>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>> Fair Play <u...@example.com> wrote in

are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
must show ID to vote, correct?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I thought I said that if one is discrimination then surely the other is
discrimination and that both RIGHTS will either be subject to a PHOTO ID
or neither will be subject to a PHOTO ID, depending on whether Eric
Holder wins his LAW SUIT AGAINST TEXAS.





--

*Rumination*

#32 - Nothing scares a Socialist more than free people exercising their
freedoms.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

> are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
>places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
>must show ID to vote, correct?

"Your reading compression sucks."
— mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011

Good idea, though. A completed Form 4473 before each vote and an
instant background check. I like it!

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:45:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>>
>> But isn't Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the ground that it's discrimination
>> for requiring a Photo ID to vote. �And doesn't that mean that if Eric
>> Holder wins that SCOTUS will also be saying that requiring a photo ID
>> for exercising your gun rights is discrimination?
>>
>> � � � � � � � � *Rumination*
>>
>> #40 - The truth is always the truth, it doesn't matter if it's
>> discovered by accident or by genius, it's always the truth.
>
> are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
>places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
>must show ID to vote, correct?

So you stopped taking your meds over the weekend? You really should
start taking them again. Do it for the children.

Gunner

--
"I was eating breakfast with my 13-year-old granddaughter
and I asked her, "What day is the 20th of February?"

She said "It's President's Day!"
(She is a smart kid.)
I asked "What does President's Day mean?"
I was waiting for something about Washington or Lincoln .... etc.
She replied, "President's Day is when President Obama steps out
of the White House, and if he sees his shadow we have
one more year of unemployment."
You know, it hurts when hot coffee spurts out your nose..."

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
news:332552d6-317a-4ac5...@k13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

Actually if you buy through a dealer you certainly do have to show ID.

> but the voter
> must show ID to vote, correct?

Depends on the state. As of now only 5 require you to produce ID, but such
ID can be had free in those 5 states.

So let me ask you one.

Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
get to vote?

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 1:40 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
can to institute a form of poll taxation.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 2:01 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:45:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> >> But isn't Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the ground that it's discrimination
> >> for requiring a Photo ID to vote.  And doesn't that mean that if Eric
> >> Holder wins that SCOTUS will also be saying that requiring a photo ID
> >> for exercising your gun rights is discrimination?
>
> >>                 *Rumination*
>
> >> #40 - The truth is always the truth, it doesn't matter if it's
> >> discovered by accident or by genius, it's always the truth.
>
> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
> >places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
> >must show ID to vote, correct?
>
> So you stopped taking your meds over the weekend?  You really should
> start taking them again.  Do it for the children.
>
> Gunner
>

"THE CONSERVATIVES" joke about beating obama to death:Tea Party Group
Jokes About Beating Obama To Death, Obama “may be a Muslim.”
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/06/647201/tea-party-group-j...
Tea Party Group Jokes About Beating Obama To Death 
By Igor Volsky on
Aug 6, 2012 at 3:33 pm 
A local tea party group in Pennsylvania called
Northeast Pennsylvania 
Spirit of 1776 is sending out an email alert
in which it imagines the 
Founding Fathers beating up President Obama
in Heaven for being a 
“radical, socialist leader”:
ThinkProgress spoke with a member of the group, who confirmed that
the 
organization sent out the mailing to its members. She explained
that 
the missive was funny because it’s predicated on the notion that
Obama 
“may be a Muslim.” NEPA Spirit Of 1776 appears to be an
independent 
group that does not endorse candidates and is not aligned
with the 
Republican party. 
The bit is a copy of Robin Williams’ ’71
Virginians’ routine, in which 
he jokes that Osama bin Laden is
greeted by Virginians — rather than 
virgins — when he dies and goes
to Heaven.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:

>
> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
> > places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun.
>
> Actually if you buy through a dealer you certainly do have to show ID.
>
> > but the voter
> > must show ID to vote, correct?
>
> Depends on the state. As of now only 5 require you to produce ID, but such
> ID can be had free in those 5 states.
>
> So let me ask you one.
>
> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
> get to vote?

can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
voter fraud in america? because bush could not. now be careful, i am
very good at spotting conservative fraud.
otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.

[RD Sandman]

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in

news:a834e53e-3342-44b6...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:

IOW, you haven't a clue what a 4473 is and what the joke was.

--

The three most common last words in aviation are: "Did you hear that?",
"What was that noise?" and "Oh, Shit!!!"


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
>> > places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun.
>>
>> Actually if you buy through a dealer you certainly do have to show ID.
>>
>> > but the voter
>> > must show ID to vote, correct?
>>
>> Depends on the state. As of now only 5 require you to produce ID, but
>> such
>> ID can be had free in those 5 states.
>>
>> So let me ask you one.
>>
>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
>> get to vote?
>
> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
> voter fraud in america?

Yes.

> because bush could not. now be careful, i am
> very good at spotting conservative fraud.
> otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.

" the U.S. Attorney in Chicago at the time, Daniel Webb, estimated that at
least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in the city) had
been cast."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-in-chicago

I think when 10% or more of the votes in an area are fraudulent. Then it's
safe to say that is evidence of mass voter fraud.

Further if you dig into it, I think you will find that the number of size
of the voter fraud cases have been growing over the last several years, and
before it grows into a massive problem, we need to nip it in the bud.

Insuring that the person actually voting is the person eligible to vote is
IMO not an unreasonable condition to set.

Indeed, I'm of the mind that like driver's licenses, one's voter
registration should periodically require a personal renewal. That would tend
to automatically 'clean the roles' of ineligible voters. Heck, in the last
election I went with my sister to my old polling place and I noted my father
is STILL listed even though he's been dead for over a decade and they have
been notified of this at least twice before. If I had been dishonest, I
could have cast another ballot by simply claiming to be my father. Clearly
something needs to be done to clear up the roles of registered voters and if
nothing else to make sure the person voting is actually the person
registered to vote.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>On Aug 7, 2:01�pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:45:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> But isn't Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the ground that it's discrimination
>> >> for requiring a Photo ID to vote. �And doesn't that mean that if Eric
>> >> Holder wins that SCOTUS will also be saying that requiring a photo ID
>> >> for exercising your gun rights is discrimination?
>>
>> >> � � � � � � � � *Rumination*
>>
>> >> #40 - The truth is always the truth, it doesn't matter if it's
>> >> discovered by accident or by genius, it's always the truth.
>>
>> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
>> >places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
>> >must show ID to vote, correct?
>>
>> So you stopped taking your meds over the weekend? �You really should
>> start taking them again. �Do it for the children.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
>"THE CONSERVATIVES" joke about beating obama to death:Tea Party Group
>Jokes About Beating Obama To Death, Obama �may be a Muslim.�
>http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/06/647201/tea-party-group-j...

>Tea Party Group Jokes About Beating Obama To Death ?By Igor Volsky on
>Aug 6, 2012 at 3:33 pm ?A local tea party group in Pennsylvania called
>Northeast Pennsylvania ?Spirit of 1776 is sending out an email alert
>in which it imagines the ?Founding Fathers beating up President Obama
>in Heaven for being a ?�radical, socialist leader�:

>ThinkProgress spoke with a member of the group, who confirmed that

>the ?organization sent out the mailing to its members. She explained
>that ?the missive was funny because it�s predicated on the notion that
>Obama ?�may be a Muslim.� NEPA Spirit Of 1776 appears to be an
>independent ?group that does not endorse candidates and is not aligned
>with the ?Republican party. ?The bit is a copy of Robin Williams� �71
>Virginians� routine, in which ?he jokes that Osama bin Laden is
>greeted by Virginians � rather than ?virgins � when he dies and goes
>to Heaven.
>

That joke was funny as hell!! And Robin Williams is hardly a
"conservative" is he?

<VBG>

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

Its been provided over and over again. Evidently you are just another
mentally ill leftwinger who blocks things that make him look the fool
from his brain

>otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.

The irony of a leftwinger making that claim..is absolutely marvelous.

[Gunner Asch]

Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
for 150 yrs.

[Nickname unavailable]

i considered the source.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 7:00 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:31:35 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
> >> > places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun.
>
> >> Actually if you buy through a dealer you certainly do have to show ID.
>
> >> > but the voter
> >> > must show ID to vote, correct?
>
> >> Depends on the state. As of now only 5 require you to produce ID, but such
> >> ID can be had free in those 5 states.
>
> >> So let me ask you one.
>
> >> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
> >> get to vote?
>
> > can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
> >voter fraud in america? because bush could not. now be careful, i am
> >very good at spotting conservative fraud.
>
> Its been provided over and over again.   Evidently you are just another
> mentally ill leftwinger who blocks things that make him look the fool
> from his brain
>
> >otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
>
> The irony of a leftwinger making that claim..is absolutely marvelous.
>
> Gunner
>

bush spent millions, found little or nothing. just because a
conservative says so, does not make it true.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 7:02 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:27:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 7, 1:40 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
> >> >places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
> >> >must show ID to vote, correct?
>
> >> "Your reading compression sucks."
> >> mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011
>
> >> Good idea, though. A completed Form 4473 before each vote and an
> >> instant background check. I like it!
>
> > conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
> >can to institute a form of poll taxation.
>
> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
> for 150 yrs.
>
> Gunner
>

you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,
because the liberal democrats wanted to extend the vote to minorities.
a conservative is a conservative, no matter what party they reside in.
and now they have complete control of the republican party:)))))

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

We have to fill out a 4473 and get a background check before we can
exercise OUR right to keep and bear arms. You're OK with THAT, but not
OK with checking ID before voting?

You leftists always were a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

Of COURSE you are. Any time a conservative wins, it's fraud- right?

[chuckle]

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 6:40 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

>
> news:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
> >> > places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun.
>
> >> Actually if you buy through a dealer you certainly do have to show ID.
>
> >> > but the voter
> >> > must show ID to vote, correct?
>
> >> Depends on the state. As of now only 5 require you to produce ID, but
> >> such
> >> ID can be had free in those 5 states.
>
> >> So let me ask you one.
>
> >> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
> >> get to vote?
>
> > can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
> > voter fraud in america?
>
> Yes.
>
> > because bush could not. now be careful, i am
> > very good at spotting conservative fraud.
> > otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
>
> " the U.S. Attorney in Chicago at the time, Daniel Webb, estimated that at
> least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in the city) had
> been cast."
>

> http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/where-theres-smoke-t...

>
> I think when 10% or more of the votes in an area are fraudulent. Then it's
> safe to say that is evidence of mass voter fraud.
>
> Further if you dig into it, I  think you will find that the number of size
> of the voter fraud cases have been growing over the last several years, and
> before it grows into a massive problem, we need to nip it in the bud.
>
> Insuring that the person actually voting is the person eligible to vote is
> IMO not an unreasonable condition to set.
>
> Indeed, I'm of the mind that like driver's licenses, one's voter
> registration should periodically require a personal renewal. That would tend
> to automatically 'clean the roles' of ineligible voters. Heck, in the last
> election I went with my sister to my old polling place and I noted my father
> is STILL listed even though he's been dead for over a decade and they have
> been notified of this at least twice before. If I had been dishonest, I
> could have cast another ballot by simply claiming to be my father. Clearly
> something needs to be done to clear up the roles of registered voters and if
> nothing else to make sure the person voting is actually the person
> registered to vote.

its the heritage foundation. also it said this,

The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name
changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

its a good chance its been debunked.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 6:11 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote innews:a834e53e-3342-44b6...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 1:40 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
> >> >talk.po
> > litics.guns :
> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
> >> >places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
> >> >must show ID to vote, correct?
>
> >> "Your reading compression sucks."
> >> mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011
>
> >> Good idea, though. A completed Form 4473 before each vote and an
> >> instant background check. I like it!
>
> >  conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
> > can to institute a form of poll taxation.
>
> IOW, you haven't a clue what a 4473 is and what the joke was.
>
> --

it does not matter, i consider the source.

[max headroom]

Nickname unavailable <video6...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
news:b98e1c42-97d3-49d4...@a9g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:

> On Aug 7, 2:01 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:45:23 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>>>> But isn't Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the ground that it's discrimination
>>>> for requiring a Photo ID to vote. And doesn't that mean that if Eric
>>>> Holder wins that SCOTUS will also be saying that requiring a photo ID
>>>> for exercising your gun rights is discrimination?

>>>> *Rumination*

>>>> #40 - The truth is always the truth, it doesn't matter if it's
>>>> discovered by accident or by genius, it's always the truth.

>>> are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling

>>> places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun....

Did you mean the New Black Panthers?

>>> ... but the voter must show ID to vote, correct?

>> So you stopped taking your meds over the weekend? You really should
>> start taking them again. Do it for the children.

>> Gunner


> "THE CONSERVATIVES" joke about beating obama to death:Tea Party Group
> Jokes About Beating Obama To Death, Obama "may be a Muslim."
> http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/06/647201/tea-party-group-j...

A simple "Yes" would have sufficed.

[max headroom]

Nickname unavailable <video6...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in

news:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:

> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote:

>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
>> get to vote?

> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass

> voter fraud in america?...

Evasion noted.

> ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am

> very good at spotting conservative fraud.
> otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.

So did our founding fathers.

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:2f06d52f-c0af-489a...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

Apparently your reader snipped the URL line.

But let me give it to you in a shorter form.

http://tinyurl.com/6t4zz7u

> its a good chance its been debunked.

Why because it's not something you want to hear?

I will just note that I doubt that it's been debunked since the
investigation was conducted by the US Department of Justice.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>

wrote:
> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >On Aug 7, 1:40 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
> >> >places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
> >> >must show ID to vote, correct?
>
> >> "Your reading compression sucks."
> >>  — mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011
>
> >> Good idea, though. A completed Form 4473 before each vote and an
> >> instant background check. I like it!
>
> > conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
> >can to institute a form of poll taxation.
>
> We have to fill out a 4473 and get a background check before we can
> exercise OUR right to keep and bear arms. You're OK with THAT, but not
> OK with checking ID before voting?
>

gun rights have expanded under obama.

but, society has deemed that a well regulated militia, does not
include conservative spree shooters. so if you have nothing to hide,
you should be ok.

> You leftists always were a bunch of hypocritical assholes.
>
> [chuckle]

poll taxes are unconstitutional.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 7:56 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

i never said that. i said bush could find none to speak of. and he
tried to find mass wide spread fraud. and if he found some, he would
make hay out of it, he could not.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 8:15 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:

extremism is extremism. it matters not who it is.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 7:56 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:

> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
> >> get to vote?
> >  can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
> > voter fraud in america?...
>
> Evasion noted.
>

where is the empirical evidence?

> > ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am
> > very good at spotting conservative fraud.
> > otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
>
> So did our founding fathers.

poll taxes are unconstitutional. OBTW, the founders crafted the
constitution, just in case you want to know the founders original
intent.

[Gunner Asch]

Obama spend trillions and the economy is going deeper into the toilet.
Saying its "improving" does not make it true.

[Gunner Asch]

Define "none to speak of"

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

And then we have the Russian connection...

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/28/20041028-122637-6257r/?page=2

http://jeremiahstrong.com/2012/02/01/flashback-satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

By IRA STOLL, Staff Reporter of the Sun | January 26, 2006
Print Send Comment
Share Share


The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force
says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by
loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats
were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book,
"Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an
interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and
they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am
confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top
general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that
Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush
administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush
himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time
address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations
believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the
intelligence turned out to be wrong."

Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."

The discovery of the weapons in Syria could alter the American political
debate on the Iraq war. And even the accusations that they are there
could step up international pressure on the government in Damascus. That
government, led by Bashar Assad, is already facing a U.N. investigation
over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of
Lebanon. The Bush administration has criticized Syria for its support of
terrorism and its failure to cooperate with the U.N. investigation.

The State Department recently granted visas for self-proclaimed
opponents of Mr. Assad to attend a "Syrian National Council" meeting in
Washington scheduled for this weekend, even though the attendees include
communists, Baathists, and members of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood
group to the exclusion of other, more mainstream groups.

Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that
transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq
approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by
American troops.

"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust
each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots.
He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their
safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines outside
Iraq.

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted
to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special
Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said,
including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The
pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice
because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from
Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June
of 2002.

"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said.
"They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."

Mr. Sada said that the Iraqi official responsible for transferring the
weapons was a cousin of Saddam Hussein named Ali Hussein al-Majid, known
as "Chemical Ali." The Syrian official responsible for receiving them
was a cousin of Bashar Assad who is known variously as General Abu Ali,
Abu Himma, or Zulhimawe.

Short of discovering the weapons in Syria, those seeking to validate Mr.
Sada's claim independently will face difficulty. His book contains a
foreword by a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, David Eberly, who was a
prisoner of war in Iraq during the first Gulf War and who vouches for
Mr. Sada, who once held him captive, as "an honest and honorable man."

In his visit to the Sun yesterday, Mr. Sada was accompanied by Terry
Law, the president of a Tulsa, Oklahoma based Christian humanitarian
organization called World Compassion. Mr. Law said he has known Mr. Sada
since 2002, lived in his house in Iraq and had Mr. Sada as a guest in
his home in America. "Do I believe this man? Yes," Mr. Law said. "It's
been solid down the line and everything checked out."

Said Mr. Law, "This is not a publicity hound. This is a man who wants
peace putting his family on the line."

Mr. Sada acknowledged that the disclosures about transfers of weapons of
mass destruction are "a very delicate issue." He said he was afraid for
his family. "I am sure the terrorists will not like it. The Saddamists
will not like it," he said.

He thanked the American troops. "They liberated the country and the
nation. It is a liberation force. They did a great job," he said. "We
have been freed."

He said he had not shared his story until now with any American
officials. "I kept everything secret in my heart," he said. But he is
scheduled to meet next week in Washington with Senators Sessions and
Inhofe, Republicans of, respectively, Alabama and Oklahoma. Both are
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The book also says that on the eve of the first Gulf War, Saddam was
planning to use his air force to launch a chemical weapons attack on
Israel.

When, during an interview with the Sun in April 2004, Vice President
Cheney was asked whether he thought that Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction had been moved to Syria, Mr. Cheney replied only that he had
seen such reports.

An article in the Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an
appearance on Israel's Channel 2 on December 23, 2002, Israel's prime
minister, Ariel Sharon, stated, "Chemical and biological weapons which
Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."
The allegation was denied by the Syrian government at the time as
"completely untrue," and it attracted scant American press attention,
coming as it did on the eve of the Christmas holiday.

The Syrian ruling party and Saddam Hussein had in common the ideology of
Baathism, a mixture of Nazism and Marxism.

Syria is one of only eight countries that has not signed the Chemical
Weapons Convention, a treaty that obligates nations not to stockpile or
use chemical weapons. Syria's chemical warfare program, apart from any
weapons that may have been received from Iraq, has long been the source
of concern to America, Israel, and Lebanon. In March 2004, the director
of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, testified before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, saying, "Damascus has an active CW development and
testing program that relies on foreign suppliers for key controlled
chemicals suitable for producing CW."

The CIA's Iraq Survey Group acknowledged in its September 30, 2004,
"Comprehensive Report," "we cannot express a firm view on the
possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the
war. Reports of such actions exist, but we have not yet been able to
investigate this possibility thoroughly."

Mr. Sada is an unusual figure for an Iraqi general as he is a Christian
and was not a member of the Baath Party. He now directs the Iraq
operations of the Christian humanitarian organization, World Compassion.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>>
>> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
>> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
>> for 150 yrs.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
>
> you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
>bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,

"Conservative" Democrats? Which one might those be?

Surely the Republican party didnt have a subgroup did it?

Like These Democrats?

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYKKKKTerroristArmoftheDemocratParty&page_id=93

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party

By Frances Rice

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the
Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in
the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers,
Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the
DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a
further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only
the second person to serve as president of the three major professional
organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American
Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku
Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon
of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of
the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who
was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was
not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in
reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat….
My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic
party.”

Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux
Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by
Democrats against Republicans, black and white.

On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a
Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every
Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders
black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive
statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the
interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who
desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the
Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state,
reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial
subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

Heartbreaking are Professor Foner’s recitations of the horrific acts of
terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted
on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: “Jack Dupree, a
victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi -
assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his
wife, who had just given birth to twins - was ‘president of a republican
club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”

“White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up
Republican meetings,“ wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page
186, he wrote: “An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed
Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where
Satan has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150
persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel
Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly
with black customers.“
***

Former KKK Member, White Supremacist Running As Democrats In North
Carolina
Posted: March 16th, 2012 1:35 PM | Author: Henry D'Andrea

Hey, but wait… I thought it was the Republicans that were the KKK white
supremacist racist hacks?

In fact, the KKK was created as the terrorist-wing of the Democrat
party. (Bet you didn’t learn that in school) It’s goal was to kill all
blacks — and some whites — who were either active in Republican politics
or educating black children. Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK
was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats
voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves.
Who’s the racists now?

The Democrat’s foundation created the KKK.

Bivins Hollar likes to post videos from his bedroom. About weight
loss. About Pokemon cards. About selling chewing gum at a flea market.

But it’s the video where he casually talks about “shooting” and
starving black South Africans – and kidnapping the country’s president –
that caught the attention of people who track white supremacists.

Hollar, who is running for the N.C. Senate from Catawba County, is
one of two Democratic candidates whom state party officials have taken
the unusual step of denouncing.

The other is Carrol Crawford, a former Ku Klux Klan leader once
convicted of burning a cross in Charlotte. He’s running for Rowan County
commissioner.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>>
>> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
>> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
>> for 150 yrs.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
>
> you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
>bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,

About Those Democrat Party-KKK Associations
Posted by Just a Grunt on Mar 15, 2012 at 8:48 am

Most folks are semi-aware of the late Sen. Byrds’ connections to the Ku
Klux Klan, but it seems those roots run deep among the Democrats. It
was the Democrats, after all, who created the Klan in the post-Civil
War period termed Reconstruction.

Today there is an article in the Charlotte Observer about the Democrat
party disowning two of their own for their active racial activities.

But it’s the video where he casually talks about “shooting” and
starving black South Africans – and kidnapping the country’s president –
that caught the attention of people who track white supremacists.

Hollar, who is running for the N.C. Senate from Catawba County, is
one of two Democratic candidates whom state party officials have taken
the unusual step of denouncing.
The other is Carrol Crawford, a former Ku Klux Klan leader once
convicted of burning a cross in Charlotte. He’s running for Rowan County
commissioner.

Nothing to see here. Move along. At least they finally denounced them
but I have to wonder how long they had been active for Democrats in the
state before being called out on it.
One other cute nugget is the defense one of them used.

When a reporter called him back, Hollar said, “I believe in
(Republican presidential candidate) Ron Paul. … OK, you just need to
stop calling me.”

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>>
>> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
>> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
>> for 150 yrs.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
>
> you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
>bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Klan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ku_Klux_Klan_in_New_Jersey

http://lansingonlinenews.com/news/ku-klux-klan-permeated-michigan-life-in-the-1920s/

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t437999/

Southern republicans you say? Odd..it would certainly appear you are
mistaken..or a fucking liar.

But given you are a Leftwinger...we can safely say you are indeed a
liar.


Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>>
>> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
>> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
>> for 150 yrs.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
>
> you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
>bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,

http://www.zianet.com/web/dimterror.htm

Democrat Terrorists
Next time a Democrat claims that Conservatives are racists, keep in mind
that Lincoln was a Republican, Republicans created and enacted all major
Civil Rights laws, Southern Democrats enacted a century of "Jim Crow"
laws, and the Ku Klux Klan was a Democrat invention to win by terror
what they could not win through politics or war.

Southern Democrats such as Ex-Klansman Senator Byrd vehemently opposed
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Conservatives believe in equality for all
Americans; while Democrats give lip service to equality while
historically practicing discrimination for political advantage -- "Jim
Crow" laws for a century, to prevent sharing social and political power
with Blacks; and then firmly enbracing "affirmative Action" and posing
as the champions of Civil Rights, when the American People would no
longer tolerate their overt racism.

The Houghton Mifflin Reader's Companion to American History says this
about the Klan Night Riders:

"Most southern counties saw little of the Klan, but others were overrun
by it for months or years at a time. It tended to thrive where the two
parties or races were relatively evenly balanced; in such places,
terrorism was most apt to change election results. In the worst-affected
counties, disguised night riders ranged the countryside on a regular
basis, dragging people from their homes, whipping, shooting, or
otherwise assaulting them, destroying their property, or driving them
away. Most of the victims were black, but white Republicans were also
targets."

The Klan sought to control the political and social status of the freed
slaves. Specifically, it attempted to curb black education, economic
advancement, voting rights, and the right to bear arms. However, the
Klan's focus was not limited to African Americans; Southern Republicans
also became the target of vicious intimidation tactics.

A federal grand jury in 1869 determined that the Klan was a "terrorist
organization." Hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and
terrorism were issued.

Oliver P. Morton, Governor and Senator from Indiana, said of the
Democrats in 1866:

"Every man who labored for rebellion in the field, who murdered Union
prisoners with cruelty and starvation, who conspired to bring about
civil war in the loyal states ... calls himself a Democrat. ... Every
wolf in sheep's clothing, who pretends to preach the gospel but
proclaims the righteousness of man-selling and slavery; every one who
shoots down negroes in the streets; burns negro school-houses and
meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own
flaming dwellings calls himself a Democrat.

"...the Ku Klux Klan, the unofficial strong-arm of voter suppression for
the Democratic Party throughout the Solid South."

In a wonderful and revealing new book by Angela McGlowan, Bamboozled:
How Americans are being Exploited by the Lies of the Liberal Agenda, she
interviews Jesse Jackson, Jr., who admits the Confederate flag, long
used as an electoral bludgeon against conservatives and Republicans, is
actually a symbol of the Democratic Party.

"There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the
Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party's flag is the
Confederate flag. It was our party's flag. That Jefferson Davis was a
Democrat; that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic
Party; that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and
were Democrats; that so much of the Democratic Party's history, since it
is our nation's oldest political party, has its roots in slavery."

As McGlowan says: "In fact, if you've ever seen a case where a black was
stoned, lynched, tarred and feathered, or prevented from voting, the
person or persons who did this to them was most likely a Democrat."

The South was solidly Democrat for a century, due not only to Jim Crow
laws enacted to disenfranchise Blacks, but political terrorism practiced
against anyone, Black or Republican, who dared to vote against the
wishes of the entrenched Southern Democrat political Machine.

The Copperheads were a faction of Democrats in the North who opposed the
American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the
Confederates. They nominally favored the Union but strongly opposed the
war, for which they blamed abolitionists, and they demanded immediate
peace and resisted the draft laws. They wanted Lincoln and the
Republicans ousted from power, seeing the president as a tyrant who was
destroying American republican values with his despotic and arbitrary
actions.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Lincoln was considered despotic, for one
thing, because he dared to jail newspaper editors who wrote seditious
articles opposing the Civil War. Today, Lincoln is revered by many
Blacks and liberals as the "Liberator of the Slaves," and you would
almost think he, along with those who pushed through the civil rights
laws of 1866 and 1964, were Democrats. Of course, they were Republicans
and conservatives, who have always believed in equality for all
Americans.

Through their control of public schools, universities, and major media,
Democrats and liberals have attempted to completely re-write history and
make it appear that conservatives have historically been racists, while
the truth is completely the opposite. While many liberals have definate
psychological problems, refusing to accept reality and common sense,
this particular malady is called "projection": constantly attempting to
inpute motives and actions to the opposition that they themselves are
guilty of.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>>
>> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
>> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
>> for 150 yrs.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
>
> you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
>bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,

History Of The Democrats And The KKK.....(Why the Democrats started the
KKK)
Live Leak ^

Posted on Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:59:36 AM by IrishMike

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black
and white, according to a new television program and book, which
describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the
GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes
from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbu
More..ilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight:
American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the
Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they
started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most
effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts
to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently
called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills
and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868
Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th

Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the
party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are
unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan
played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his
book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from
1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public
floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote
for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by
death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did
not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans
were also included."

Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American
Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on
Trinity Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.

Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of
any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today
should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.

His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the
Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how
that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.

Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently
revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the
Democrats, the book reveals.

Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came
before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.

"The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat ? either in the
House or the Senate ? voted for the 14th Amendment," Barton wrote.
"Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as
well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of
citizenship for black Americans."

He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868
Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform
declaring the Congress' civil rights laws were "unconstitutional,
revolutionary, and void."

It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first
grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.

Barton's book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election
worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state
of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find
only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted
being a Democrat.

Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National
Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said
in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd
Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the
resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.

Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP's 1960 Civil
Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18
Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed
the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour
filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including
Tennessee's Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.

Dems' website showing jump in history

The current version of the "History" page on the party website lists a
number of accomplishments ? from 1792, 1798, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1816,
1824 and 1828, including its 1832 nomination of Andrew Jackson for
president. It follows up with a name change, and the establishment of
the Democratic National Committee, but then leaps over the Civil War and
all of its issues to talk about the end of the 19th Century, William
Jennings Bryan and women's suffrage.

A spokesman with the Democrats refused to comment for WND on any of the
issues. "You're not going to get a comment," said the spokesman who
identified himself as Luis.

"Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900?"
Barton asked. "Perhaps because it's not the kind of civil rights history
they want to talk about ? perhaps because it is not the kind of civil
rights history they want to have on their website."

The National Review article by Deroy Murdock cited the 1866 comment from
Indiana Republican Gov. Oliver Morton condemning Democrats for their
racism.

"Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro
schoolhouses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the
light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat," Morton
said.

It also cited the 1856 criticism by U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass.,
of pro-slavery Democrats. "Congressman Preston Brooks (D-S.C.) responded
by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate
chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years."

By the admission of the Democrats themselves, on their website, it
wasn't until Harry Truman was elected that "Democrats began the fight to
bring down the final barriers of race and gender."

"That is an accurate description," wrote Barton. "Starting with Harry
Truman, Democrats began ? that is, they made their first serious efforts
? to fight against the barriers of race; yet ? Truman's efforts were
largely unsuccessful because of his own Democratic Party."

Even then, the opposition to rights for blacks was far from over. As
recently as 1960, Mississippi Democratic Gov. Hugh White had requested
Christian evangelist Billy Graham segregate his crusades, something
Graham refused to do. "And when South Carolina Democratic Gov. George
Timmerman learned Billy Graham had invited African Americans to a
Reformation Rally at the state Capitol, he promptly denied use of the
facilities to the evangelist," Barton wrote.

The National Review noted that the Democrats' "Klan-coddling" today is
embodied in Byrd, who once wrote that, "The Klan is needed today as
never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."

The article suggested a contrast with the GOP, which, when former
Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican,
was "scorned" by national GOP officials.

Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was
Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star
generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national
holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary
of state, the research reveals.

Current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said: "The first
Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most
admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of
1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has
never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

Barton's documentation said the first opponents of slavery "and the
chief advocates for racial equal rights were the churches (the Quakers,
Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Furthermore, religious leaders such as
Quaker Anthony Benezet were the leading spokesmen against slavery, and
evangelical leaders such as Presbyterian signer of the Declaration
Benjamin Rush were the founders of the nation's first abolition
societies."

During the years surrounding the Civil War, "the most obvious difference
between the Republican and Democrat parties was their stands on
slavery," Barton said. Republicans called for its abolition, while
Democrats declared: "All efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made
to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take
incipient [to initiate] steps in relation thereto, are calculated to
lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and all such
efforts have the inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the
people."

Wallbuilders also cited John Alden's 1885 book, "A Brief History of the
Republican Party" in noting that the KKK's early attacks were on
Republicans as much as blacks, in that blacks were adopting the
Republican identity en masse.

"In some places the Ku Klux Klan assaulted Republican officials in their
houses or offices or upon the public roads; in others they attacked the
meetings of negroes and displaced them," Alden wrote. "Its ostensible
purpose at first was to keep the blacks in order and prevent them from
committing small depredations upon the property of whites, but its real
motives were essentially political ? The negroes were invariable
required to promise not to vote the Republican ticket, and threatened
with death if they broke their promises."

Barton told WND the most cohesive group of political supporters in
American now is African-Americans. He said most consider their
affiliation with the Democratic party longterm.

But he said he interviewed a black pastor in Mississippi, who recalled
his grandmother never "would let a Democrat in the house, and he never
knew what she was talking about." After a review of history, he knew,
Barton said.

Citing President George Washington's farewell address, Barton told WND,
"Washington had a great section on the love of party, if you love party
more than anything else, what it will do to a great nation."

"We shouldn't love a party [over] a candidate's principles or values,"
he told WND.

Washington's farewell address noted the "danger" from parties is
serious.

"Let me now ? warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful
effects of the spirit of party, generally. ? The alternate domination of
one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to
party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated
the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism," Washington
said.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:42:16 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>>
>> >  conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
>> > can to institute a form of poll taxation.
>>
>> IOW, you haven't a clue what a 4473 is and what the joke was.
>>
>> --
>
>
> it does not matter, i consider the source.

Then you are an utter fuckwit, condemed by your own words

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:24:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
<video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

>>
>> We have to fill out a 4473 and get a background check before we can
>> exercise OUR right to keep and bear arms. You're OK with THAT, but not
>> OK with checking ID before voting?
>>
>
> gun rights have expanded under obama.

Gun rights have expanded Despite Obama

>
>but, society has deemed that a well regulated militia, does not
>include conservative spree shooters. so if you have nothing to hide,
>you should be ok.

Odd that of the last 10 "spree shootings" at least 9 were done by
Democrats......isnt it?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >On Aug 7, 1:40 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
>> >> >places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
>> >> >must show ID to vote, correct?
>>
>> >> "Your reading compression sucks."
>> >>  — mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011
>>
>> >> Good idea, though. A completed Form 4473 before each vote and an
>> >> instant background check. I like it!
>>
>> > conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
>> >can to institute a form of poll taxation.
>>
>> We have to fill out a 4473 and get a background check before we can
>> exercise OUR right to keep and bear arms. You're OK with THAT, but not
>> OK with checking ID before voting?
>>
>
> gun rights have expanded under obama.

He just stood there and watched. It was already in motion and he had
absolutely no say in the matter.

Don't even fucking TRY to give that dumb ass any credit.

[chuckle]

>but, society has deemed that a well regulated militia, does not
>include conservative spree shooters. so if you have nothing to hide,
>you should be ok.

Ah, so you're OK with random house to house body cavity searches,
then? Because if you've got nothing to hide....

>> You leftists always were a bunch of hypocritical assholes.
>>
>> [chuckle]
>
> poll taxes are unconstitutional.

Requiring a photo ID isn't a tax.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Aug 7, 7:56 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
>> >> > places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun.
>>
>> >> Actually if you buy through a dealer you certainly do have to show ID.
>>
>> >> > but the voter
>> >> > must show ID to vote, correct?
>>
>> >> Depends on the state. As of now only 5 require you to produce ID, but such
>> >> ID can be had free in those 5 states.
>>
>> >> So let me ask you one.
>>
>> >> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
>> >> get to vote?
>>
>> > can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
>> >voter fraud in america? because bush could not. now be careful, i am
>> >very good at spotting conservative fraud.
>>
>> Of COURSE you are. Any time a conservative wins, it's fraud- right?
>>
>> [chuckle]
>
> i never said that.

Of COURSE not.

[chuckle]

[max headroom]

Nickname unavailable <video6...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in

news:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:

> On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:

>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:

>>> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>>> wrote:

>>>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
>>>> get to vote?

>>> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
>>> voter fraud in america?...

>> Evasion noted.

> where is the empirical evidence?

Right there, above my comment. Scout asked you a question and you evaded it.

>>> ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am
>>> very good at spotting conservative fraud.
>>> otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.

>> So did our founding fathers.

> poll taxes are unconstitutional. OBTW, the founders crafted the
> constitution, just in case you want to know the founders original
> intent.

Very good, Grasshopper. The Federalist Papers also explain their intent.

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
news:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X,
>> >> and
>> >> get to vote?
>> > can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
>> > voter fraud in america?...
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>>
>
>
> where is the empirical evidence?

Already supplied.

And he's right it's still an evasion and you still haven't answered the
question.

>> > ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am
>> > very good at spotting conservative fraud.
>> > otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
>>
>> So did our founding fathers.
>
> poll taxes are unconstitutional.

Yep, and has nothing to do with this issue.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/7/2012 11:24 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>> Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>> On Aug 7, 1:40 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>> are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
>>>>> places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
>>>>> must show ID to vote, correct?
>>
>>>> "Your reading compression sucks."

>>>> � mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011

>>
>>>> Good idea, though. A completed Form 4473 before each vote and an
>>>> instant background check. I like it!
>>
>>> conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
>>> can to institute a form of poll taxation.
>>
>> We have to fill out a 4473 and get a background check before we can
>> exercise OUR right to keep and bear arms. You're OK with THAT, but not
>> OK with checking ID before voting?
>>
>
> gun rights have expanded under obama.
>
> but, society has deemed that a well regulated militia, does not
> include conservative spree shooters. so if you have nothing to hide,
> you should be ok.
>

The poor and the old and the minorities are being discriminated against
by all the cost and travel and rules that have to follow to get your
photo ID.


Liberals are racist, as they want people to have a photo ID to exercise
their right to get a gun.


*Rumination*

#1 - Liberalism is based on race and is inherently racist because in
Liberalism, race is the one thing from which all else is derived.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/7/2012 6:31 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>

>>> are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
>>> places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun.
>>

>> Actually if you buy through a dealer you certainly do have to show ID.
>>

>>> but the voter
>>> must show ID to vote, correct?
>>

>> Depends on the state. As of now only 5 require you to produce ID, but such
>> ID can be had free in those 5 states.
>>
>> So let me ask you one.
>>

>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
>> get to vote?
>
> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
> voter fraud in america?

Can you do that for gun ownership? Are 98% of all voters and gun
owners lawful or are they violating the laws and need to be using photo ID.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/7/2012 6:27 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Aug 7, 1:40 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>> Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>>> are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling

>>> places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter

>>> must show ID to vote, correct?
>>

>> "Your reading compression sucks."
>> � mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011
>>
>> Good idea, though. A completed Form 4473 before each vote and an
>> instant background check. I like it!
>
> conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
> can to institute a form of poll taxation.
>

If you do it for other rights, then voting is the same, and all rights
are subject to the requirements. Other rights say they can NOT be
infringed, voting says poll tax, it's all the same.

--

*Rumination*

#41 - When we lived under a constitution we were a Nation of LAWS.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 7, 9:27 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>

you mean the guys who were involved in voter suppression
themselves:))))




http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/


• Brennan Center for Justice
• Contact Us
• News
• Litigation
• Commentary
• Case Studies
By State
• Case Studies
By Issue
• Analysis & Reports
• Home
•
• Allegations of widespread fraud by malevolent voters are easy to
make, but often prove to be inflated or inaccurate. Crying “wolf” when
the claims are unsubstantiated distracts attention from real problems
that need real solutions. Moreover, these claims are frequently used
to justify policies – including restrictive photo identification rules
– that could not solve the alleged wrongs, but that could well
disenfranchise legitimate voters.
• The Brennan Center carefully examines allegations of fraud to get
at the truth behind the claims.
•
• Two New Reports:
•
• An analysis of more than 250 claims of fraud in the Supreme Court's
photo ID case
• Finding not one proven case of a fraudulent vote that the
challenged law could prevent
• Exposing false assertions that photo ID is required for common
activities
•
• The Truth About Voter Fraud, examining inflated claims of voter
fraud nationwide
• Debunking claims of double voting, dead voters, and more
•
• See more about the link between voter fraud and restrictive ID
rules here and here.
•
• See the hyperlinked timeline of the Brennan Center's work on voter
fraud,
• including work on restrictive photo ID requirements.
•
• Also in the news: Resources concerning FEC nominee Hans von
Spakovsky, 
his DOJ colleague Bradley Schlozman,
and a presentation
about their role in policies suppressing the vote at DOJ
•
•
• Eeeeek! A Fraud!
• (RJ Matson, Roll Call, April 16, 2007)
•
•
• Analysis & Reports: Policy briefs, reports, and other national
resources assessing allegations of voter fraud.
• Case Studies by Issue: Examinations of voter fraud claims, sorted
by the type of fraud alleged.
• Case Studies by State: Examinations of voter fraud claims, sorted
by the location of the fraud alleged.
• Commentary: Opinions and editorials on the hunt for individual
voter fraud.
• Litigation: Materials assessing claims of voter fraud, filed in
court cases around the country.
• News: Links to news stories, press releases, and announcements
about voter fraud.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 1:50 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> >> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
> >> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
> >> for 150 yrs.
>
> >> Gunner
>
> > you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
> >bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Klan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ku_Klux_Klan_in_New_Jersey
>

> http://lansingonlinenews.com/news/ku-klux-klan-permeated-michigan-lif...

>
> http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t437999/
>
> Southern republicans you say?  Odd..it would certainly appear you are
> mistaken..or a fucking liar.
>
> But given you are a Leftwinger...we can safely say you are indeed a
> liar.
>
> Gunner
>

gee, the KKK was operating in many states, north and south. but
today, they are mainly in the south. except it looks like there is one
for sure in wisconsin:)))))))))

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 1:51 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> >> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
> >> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
> >> for 150 yrs.
>
> >> Gunner
>
> > you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
> >bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,
>

lincoln could never be in today's republican party. the south sure
would never vote for him in droves." today the modern republican
party, has employed the southern strategy, that is they pander to
racists.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 1:52 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:


you are not very good at this are you:)))))

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 1:52 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:42:16 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> >> >  conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
> >> > can to institute a form of poll taxation.
>
> >> IOW, you haven't a clue what a 4473 is and what the joke was.
>
> >> --
>
> > it does not matter, i consider the source.
>
> Then you are an utter fuckwit, condemed by  your own words
>
> Gunner
>

you mean i will not accept a open lie:)))

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/8/2012 12:13 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Aug 8, 1:51 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
>>>> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
>>>> for 150 yrs.
>>
>>>> Gunner
>>
>>> you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
>>> bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,

Like (D)Senator Robert Byrd?

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 1:38 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:


no one is that stupid. bush would have invaded.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 1:43 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

yes there are democratic conservatives. but most of them moved to the
republican party decades ago. today those conservative republicans are
trying to suppress minority voting rights.
you are simply shilling for racists, and you are to stupid to know
it:)))))

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 1:53 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:24:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>

> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> >> We have to fill out a 4473 and get a background check before we can
> >> exercise OUR right to keep and bear arms. You're OK with THAT, but not
> >> OK with checking ID before voting?
>
> > gun rights have expanded under obama.
>
> Gun rights have expanded Despite Obama
>
>

in reality, bush instituted martial law in new orleans, took away
peoples guns, and turned over the city to a private army.

>
> >but, society has deemed that a well regulated militia, does not
> >include conservative spree shooters. so if you have nothing to hide,
> >you should be ok.
>
> Odd that of the last 10 "spree shootings" at least 9 were done by
> Democrats......isnt it?
>
> Gunner
>

i would not put to much into that statement. most acts of domestic
terrorism have the same types of spree shooters, disgruntled
conservatives.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 6:33 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>

wrote:
> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> >On Aug 7, 1:40 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> >> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
> >> >> >places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter
> >> >> >must show ID to vote, correct?
>
> >> >> "Your reading compression sucks."
> >> >>  — mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011
>
> >> >> Good idea, though. A completed Form 4473 before each vote and an
> >> >> instant background check. I like it!
>
> >> > conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
> >> >can to institute a form of poll taxation.
>
> >> We have to fill out a 4473 and get a background check before we can
> >> exercise OUR right to keep and bear arms. You're OK with THAT, but not
> >> OK with checking ID before voting?
>
> > gun rights have expanded under obama.
>
> He just stood there and watched. It was already in motion and he had
> absolutely no say in the matter.
>
> Don't even fucking TRY to give that dumb ass any credit.
>

i give him credit for not stopping it. if he was a tyrant, he would
have.

> [chuckle]
>
> >but, society has deemed that a well regulated militia, does not
> >include conservative spree shooters. so if you have nothing to hide,
> >you should be ok.
>
> Ah, so you're OK with random house to house body cavity searches,
> then? Because if you've got nothing to hide....
>

then why did you guys let bush get away with gutting the bill of
rights you stupid fuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> >> You leftists always were a bunch of hypocritical assholes.
>
> >> [chuckle]
>
> > poll taxes are unconstitutional.
>
> Requiring a photo ID isn't a tax.

yes it is. its also a way to trace who voted for who. clearly
unconstitutional. oh, i forgot, in "THE CONSERVATIVE" world, what you
agree with in the constitution is constitutional, the parts you do not
agree with, are unconstitutional.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/8/2012 12:13 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:

> On Aug 8, 1:51 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
>>>> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
>>>> for 150 yrs.
>>
>>>> Gunner
>>
>>> you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
>>> bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,
>>
> lincoln could never be in today's republican party.

That is a "silly" statement. Lincoln didn't free the Slaves until he
was losing the civil war. Lincoln used slaves as pawns.

...but the southern Democrats were even worse.




--

*Rumination*

#32 - Nothing scares a Socialist more than free people exercising their
freedoms.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 6:34 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>

i did not. see how stupid and childish you are.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 1:25 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:

> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote innews:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
> >> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
> >>> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
> >>>> get to vote?
> >>> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
> >>> voter fraud in america?...
> >> Evasion noted.
> >  where is the empirical evidence?
>
> Right there, above my comment. Scout asked you a question and you evaded it.
>

you said i evaded the question, i did not. that is not empirical
evidence of wise spread voter fraud. clearly this is over your head.

> >>> ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am
> >>> very good at spotting conservative fraud.
> >>> otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
> >> So did our founding fathers.
> >  poll taxes are unconstitutional. OBTW, the founders crafted the
> > constitution, just in case you want to know the founders original
> > intent.
>
> Very good, Grasshopper. The Federalist Papers also explain their intent.

the federalist papers were a blueprint for a strong centralized
government.


the Constitution created a robust central authority:stating in the
preamble the explicit responsibility of the government to promote the
general Welfare:The document also granted the federal government
broad 
domestic powers including authority to regulate interstate
commerce, 
the so-called Commerce Clause
http://truth-out.org/news/item/8080-did-the-founders-hate-government?
Did the Founders Hate Government? 
Saturday, 24 March 2012 13:14 By
Robert Parry, Consortium News | News 
Analysis
Orwell’s insight - that who controls the present controls the past,
and who controls the past controls the future - could apply to the
American political debate in which the Right has built a false
narrative that enlists the Framers of the Constitution as enemies of
a 
strong central government, writes Robert Parry. 
In the coming
months – with a new fight over the federal budget, the 
Supreme
Court’s review of health-care reform and the November 
elections – the
battle in the United States will pit not just 
political parties and
economic ideologies against one another – but 
competing national
narratives of how and why the United States was 
founded. 
Indeed, it
is that conflict over the American narrative that may well 
determine
the outcome of the presidential election and the future 
direction of
the United States. Yet, this dispute over the Founders’ 
vision is
rarely debated in the mainstream news media. 
The argument does,
however, inspire right-wing groups which obsess 
over “strict
construction” of the Constitution and the “originalist” 
intent of the
Founders. Such references also have become standard fare 
on the
Republican campaign trail with the four remaining major 
candidates
claiming to be in this fight to defend American “liberty.” 
On
Saturday, for instance, ex-Sen. Rick Santorum declared that 
President
Barack Obama’s health-care reform is “a threat to the very 
essence of
who America is.” As the New York Times noted, “numbers like 
1776 and
1860 increasingly pepper his speeches as he stresses the 
historical
urgency of his candidacy.” 
The Right’s historical narrative holds
that the Founders designed the 
United States to have a weak central
government barred from 
confronting most domestic problems (though
with broad powers for 
defense). Under this “free-market” system,
wealthy business interests 
had the “liberty” to set their own rules
and the average citizen had 
the “freedom” to make his way the best he
could. 
There is, of course, a counter-narrative, but Democrats and
progressives rarely make it, preferring to cede the history to the
Right and to argue that the Founders couldn’t possibly have
anticipated the complex problems of the modern age. 
Still, the
counter-narrative to the GOP mythology is grounded in solid 
history.
Indeed, the evidence is that most constitutional framers were
pragmatic men interested in building a strong nation. They also were
fed up with the weak central government under the Articles of
Confederation. They surely weren’t anti-government ideologues. 
In the
Constitution, they created a robust central authority, stating 
in the
preamble the explicit responsibility of the government “to 
promote
the general Welfare.” The document also granted the federal
government broad domestic powers, including authority to regulate
interstate commerce, the so-called Commerce Clause. 
Framing the
Commerce Clause 
Plus, the Commerce Clause was not some afterthought
at the 
Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was presented as one of
the new 
federal powers in James Madison’s Virginia plan on the first
day of 
substantive debate. It also was considered one of the least
controversial features of the new governing framework. 
Indeed,
constitutional architect Madison had been maneuvering to give 
this
power to the federal government for years, seeking such a change 
in
the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States 
from
1777 to 1787. 
Madison “sponsored a resolution instructing Virginia
congressmen to 
vote to give the federal government the authority to
regulate commerce 
for twenty-five years,” noted Chris DeRose in
Founding Rivals, a 
resolution that won the support of Gen. George
Washington, one of the 
fiercest critics of the weak central
government in the Articles of 
Confederation. 
Because the Articles’
structure of 13 “independent” and “sovereign” 
states had left
Washington’s soldiers starving and desperate – when 
the states
reneged on promised funding – Washington advocated a much 
stronger
central government. 
Regarding Madison’s commerce idea, Washington
wrote that “the 
proposition in my opinion is so self evident that I
confess I am at a 
loss to discover wherein lies the weight of the
objection to the 
measure. We are either a united people, or we are
not. If the former, 
let us, in all matters of a general concern act
as a nation, which 
have national objects to promote, and a national
character to support. 
If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by
pretending it to be.” 
When the Virginia legislature slashed Madison’s
proposal for federal 
control of commerce from 25 years to 13 years,
he voted against it as 
insufficient. His thoughts then turned to a
more drastic scheme for 
consolidating power in the hands of the
federal government, a 
constitutional convention, albeit under the
guise of simply proposing 
some changes to the Articles. 
A Dramatic
Change 
In spring 1787 – with a convention called in Philadelphia to
amend the 
Articles of Confederation – Madison unveiled his radical
alternative, 
not simply some modifications to the Articles but an
entirely new 
system that wiped away the Articles’ language about the
“independence” 
and “sovereignty” of the states. 
On May 29, 1787, the
first day of substantive debate at the 
Constitutional Convention, a
fellow Virginian, Edmund Randolph, 
presented Madison’s framework.
Madison’s Commerce Clause was there 
from the start, except that
instead of a 25-year grant of federal 
authority, the central
government’s control of interstate commerce 
would be made permanent.
Madison’s convention notes on Randolph’s presentation recount him
saying that “there were many advantages, which the U. S. might
acquire, which were not attainable under the confederation – such as
a 
productive impost [or tax] – counteraction of the commercial
regulations of other nations – pushing of commerce ad libitum – &c
&c.” 
In other words, the Founders – at their most “originalist”
moment – 
understood the value of the federal government taking action
to negate 
the commercial advantages of other countries and to take
steps for 
“pushing of [American] commerce.” The “ad libitum – &c &c”
notation 
suggests that Randolph provided other examples off the top
of his 
head. 
Historian Bill Chapman has summarized Randolph’s point
as saying “we 
needed a government that could co-ordinate commerce in
order to 
compete effectively with other nations.” 
So, from the very
start of the debate on a new Constitution, Madison 
and other key
framers recognized that a legitimate role of the U.S. 
Congress was to
ensure that the nation could match up against other 
countries
economically and could address problems impeding the 
nation’s
economic success and the public welfare. 
The constitutional framers
understood what they were doing. As 
historian Richard Labunski wrote
in James Madison and the Struggle for 
the Bill of Rights, “no one
knew better than the delegates that the 
proposed Constitution would
drastically alter the structure of 
government. Much of the power of
the states would be taken from them.” 
The point also was not missed
by the advocates of states’ rights. 
After the Constitutional
Convention, these Anti-Federalists, led by 
Madison’s chief rival
Patrick Henry, mounted a fierce campaign to 
defeat Madison’s scheme
because they recognized that it concentrated 
power in the central
government. 
For instance, dissidents from Pennsylvania’s convention
delegation 
wrote: “We dissent … because the powers vested in Congress
by this 
constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the
legislative, 
executive, and judicial powers of the several states,
and produce from 
their ruins one consolidated government.” [See David
Wootton, The 
Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.] 
As
resistance to Madison’s plan spread – and as states elected 
delegates
to ratifying conventions – Madison feared that his 
constitutional
masterwork would go down to defeat or be subjected to a 
second
convention that might remove important federal powers like the
Commerce Clause. 
Finessing the Opposition 
So, Madison – along with
Alexander Hamilton and John Jay – began a 
series of essays, called
the Federalist Papers, designed to counter 
the fierce (though
generally accurate) attacks by the Anti-Federalists 
against the broad
assertion of federal power in the Constitution. 
Madison’s strategy
was essentially to insist that the drastic changes 
contained in the
Constitution were not all that drastic, an approach 
he took both as a
delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention and in 
the Federalist
Papers. 
Today’s Right has sought to transform Madison from his role
as the 
chief advocate for a strong central government into the
opposite – a 
modern-day Tea Partier before his time – by citing
Federalist Paper 
No. 45, entitled “The Alleged Danger From the Powers
of the Union to 
the State Governments Considered,” in which Madison
used the pseudonym 
Publius. 
Trying to finesse the opposition to his
plan for enhanced federal
powers, Madison wrote: “If the new Constitution be examined with

accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists
much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the
invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.”
But even that was an admission from Madison that the Constitution
added teeth to what had been toothless authorities theoretically
granted to the central government under the Articles. Making powers
meaningful, rather than ineffectual, is not an insignificant change.
Madison also noted: “The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new
power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from
which no apprehensions are entertained.”
Yet, to claim Madison as an opponent of an activist federal
government, the Right must ignore both his advocacy for beefing up
what had been weak authorities and adding the crucial new one over
commerce. The Right also must ignore Federalist Paper No. 14 in which
Madison envisioned major construction projects under the powers
granted by the Commerce Clause.
“[T]he union will be daily facilitated by new improvements,” Madison
wrote. “Roads will everywhere be shortened, and kept in better order;
accommodations for travelers will be multiplied and meliorated; an
interior navigation on our eastern side will be opened throughout, or
nearly throughout the whole extent of the Thirteen States.
“The communication between the western and Atlantic districts, and
between different parts of each, will be rendered more and more easy
by those numerous canals with which the beneficence of nature has
intersected our country, and which art finds it so little difficult
to
connect and complete.”
The building of canals, as an argument in support of the Commerce
Clause and the Constitution, further reflects the pragmatic – and
commercial – attitudes of key founders. In 1785, two years before the
Constitutional Convention, George Washington founded the Potowmack
Company, which began the work of digging canals to extend navigable
waterways westward where he and other Founders had invested in Ohio
and other undeveloped lands.
Thus, the idea of involving the central government in major economic
projects – a government-business partnership to create jobs and
profits – was there from the beginning. Madison, Washington and other
early American leaders saw the Constitution as creating a dynamic
system so the young country could grow and overcome the daunting
challenges of its vast territory.
The Founders did debate the proper limits of federal and state
powers,
but again Madison and Washington came down on the side of making
federal statutes and treaties the supreme law of the land. (Madison
had even favored giving Congress veto power over each state law, but
settled for granting the federal courts the authority to overturn
state laws that violated federal statutes.)
After Ratification
The narrow ratification of the Constitution in 1788 did not end the
confrontations over states’ rights, especially when the South began
to
fear that its agriculture-based economy and its lucrative industry of
slavery might be threatened as the industrialized North expanded and
the anti-slavery movement grew.
In the early 1830s, President Andrew Jackson faced down South
Carolina
over its claimed right to “nullify” federal law. And three decades
later, President Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to settle the
issue of states having the right to secede from the Union.
Still, as late as the 1950s and 1960s, Southern white supremacists
were still citing the principle of states’ right in defending
segregation. Though the segregationists lost those fights in federal
courts and in the battle for public opinion, they never surrendered.
They simply regrouped.
In the mid-1970s, as the Vietnam War ended, the American Left began
shutting down or selling off much its media, which had proved
effective in reaching out to the public to build opposition to the
war. At the same time, the Right began investing heavily in its own
media infrastructure.
Wealthy right-wing foundations and industrialists, like the Koch
Brothers, also poured money into think tanks, which hired clever
individuals who began reframing the national narrative. Part of that
effort was to support “scholarship” that transformed Madison and
other
key framers from advocates of a strong central government into
proponents for states’ rights.
A few of Madison’s quotes – from 1788 as he tried to downplay how
radical his new constitutional system actually was – were plucked out
of context, while other parts of his biography as an advocate for a
strong central government were simply erased.
By Ronald Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, Americans were being told
that “government is the problem” and that the nation had deviated
from
the Founders’ original vision of an Ayn Rand-style “free-market”
society in which everyone was on their own and the government only
worried about fighting wars.
Increasingly, the Right pitched itself as the defender of the
nation’s
founding ideals. Any time the central government sought to address
vexing national problems – from the need to regulate Wall Street to
extending health coverage to the tens of millions of uninsured
Americans – these proposals were labeled “unconstitutional.”
Some right-wing jurists, most notably Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia, advocated “originalism,” insisting that constitutional powers
should apply only to what the Founders had in mind at the time. The
Right ignored the clear record that the Founders intended their
governing structure to meet both their immediate needs and the
distant
interests of their “posterity.”
Indeed, if there was any true “originalism,” it was that the
Constitution should be sufficiently dynamic to cope with any number
of
anticipated and unanticipated challenges that might confront the
nation. As the discussion about canal building shows, Madison,
Washington and other key framers were pragmatists.
One-Sided Debate
Yet, while the Right was bending the founding narrative to its
purposes, the Left largely dismissed the importance of this debate,
perhaps in part because the Left tends to disdain many Founders as
slave-owning aristocrats who hypocritically denied their precious
“unalienable rights” to women, blacks, Indians, the poor and many
others.
While that surely was true, the nation’s founding narrative retains a
strong mythic appeal to many Americans – and the Right’s twisting of
the history has proved a powerful tactic to rally many middle- and
working-class Americans, particularly white men, to the Tea Party
cause and to the Republican Party.
Believing they’re channeling the true spirit of the Founders, many of
these average Americans end up siding with ultra-rich plutocrats who
see an effective and democratized federal government as the last
obstacle to their total domination of the United States.
Thus, the Tea Partiers and their allies fight: to let Wall Street
banks operate as recklessly as they wish; to let health insurance
companies deny coverage to sick people; to let rich investors pay
lower tax rates than their secretaries; to let billionaires buy up
the
political process through Super-PACs; to let companies outsource
jobs;
to let industry despoil the environment; and to slash life-saving
federal programs like Medicare, food stamps and Social Security.
The “logic” behind this “populist” support for the interests of the
rich is that many average folk think they are engaged in a principled
stand for “liberty” – with the federal government their oppressor,
standing in for the British Crown in 1776. That’s why the Tea
Partiers
wave “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and dress up in Revolutionary War
costumes.
Simply put, these Tea Partiers have been fooled by a well-funded
propaganda campaign tricking them by substituting a false narrative
about the nation’s founding and thus enlisting their help in
dismantling the Great American Middle Class.
Building the Middle Class
Many of these Americans have forgotten a basic truth: that the Great
American Middle Class was largely a creation of the federal
government
and its policies dating back to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. For
many Tea Partiers, it is more satisfying to think that they or their
parents climbed the social ladder on their own, that they “didn’t
need
no guv-mint help.”
But the truth is that it was government policies arising out of the
Great Depression and carried forward through the post-World War II
years by both Republican and Democratic presidents that created the
opportunities for tens of millions of Americans to achieve relative
comfort and economic security.
Those policies ranged from Social Security and labor rights in the
1930s to the GI Bill after World War II to Medicare in the 1960s and
to government investments in infrastructure and technological
research
over many decades. Even in recent years, despite right-wing efforts
to
choke off money to government research, federal programs – such as
the
Internet – have brought greater efficiency to markets, as well as
wealth to many entrepreneurs.
So, the Right’s success in dismantling the New Deal, piece by piece,
and shoving more and more Americans down the social ladder has hinged
on the demonization of “guv-mint.” This message – often wrapped in
patriotic hoopla and coded appeals to bigotry – were delivered most
effectively by the personable Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
Yet, while rallying many working-class “Reagan Democrats” to his
banner, Reagan’s most important policy was slashing taxes on the
rich.
Under Reagan’s “supply-side economics,” the top marginal tax rate –
what the richest Americans pay on their highest tranche of income –
was more than halved, from 70 percent to 28 percent.
Still, the promised surge in “supply-side” growth never really
materialized and a key result was the dramatic rise in the national
debt. Another less obvious change was the incentivizing of greed,
which had been discouraged by the much higher marginal tax rates of
the post-World War II years, from Dwight Eisenhower (when the top
marginal tax rate was 90 percent) through Jimmy Carter (with a 70
percent top rate).
After all, if 70 to 90 percent of your highest tranche of income went
to the government to help pay for building the nation, you had little
personal incentive to press for that extra $1 million or $2 million
in
compensation.
So corporate CEOs – while well-paid – were happy earning about 25
times as much as their average worker in the 1960s. A few decades
later, that ratio on CEO pay was about 200 times what the average
worker was making.
The consequences of several decades of Reaganism and its related
ideas
(such as the “free-market” shipping of many middle-class jobs
overseas
where workers are paid much less) are now apparent. Wealth has been
concentrated at the top with billionaires living extravagant lives
while the middle class struggles. One everyman after another gets
shoved down the ladder.
The data is now clear that the last three decades have witnessed a
divergence between the haves and the have-nots unprecedented in the
United States, at least since the lead-up to the Great Depression
when
a similar era of income inequality set the stage for financial
disaster.
For instance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office – in an
analysis of data from 1979 to 2005 – found that the inflation-
adjusted
income of middle-class Americans rose about 21 percent (only about
one-
fifth the increase enjoyed by the middle class during the post-World
War II era).
Meanwhile, the income for the ultra-rich (the top 100th of one
percent) jumped 480 percent from 1979 to 2005, rising from an average
of $4.2 million to $24.3 million. And CBO’s analysis ends in 2005,
thus missing the decimation of the middle class from the Wall Street
bust of 2008.
Struggling Americans
Behind the numbers, the real-life consequences are painful. Millions
of Americans forego needed medical care because they can’t afford
health insurance; young people, burdened by college loans, crowd back
in with their parents; trained workers settle for low-paying jobs or
are unemployed; families skip vacations and other simple pleasures of
life.
Beyond the unfairness, there is the macro-economic problem which
comes
from massive income disparity. A strong economy is one in which the
vast majority people can buy products, which can then be manufactured
more cheaply, creating a positive cycle of profits and prosperity.
Plus, the problems facing the nation grow even more severe with
looming shortages of vital resources and the impending catastrophe of
global warming. Only an energetic federal government can focus the
national will to tackle these challenges.
The pragmatic Founders would understand this need for unified action.
Yet, Republicans running for President and GOP members of Congress
continue to call for further cuts in taxes for the rich and more cuts
in government spending, rending the social safety net and slashing
investments in infrastructure, education, research and the
environment.
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled a plan Tuesday to reduce the
highest marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent – even lower
than it was under Reagan – while domestic spending would be slashed
and Medicare would be turned into a voucher system with the elderly
paying a much higher share of their health costs.
As in the past, this approach is accompanied by assurances of faster
economic growth, but the record for those promises should now be
clear. The GOP plans are also wrapped in rhetoric about “liberty” and
the “spirit of the Founders” – though in truth that spirit was
infused
with a pragmatic notion of the country pulling together to meet its
challenges
So, what’s at stake in 2012 is not just who wins and how that will
affect the immediate welfare of the American people – but whether a
false narrative about America’s past will lead it into a darkening
future.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 1:28 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:46:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 7, 7:00 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:31:35 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable

>
> >> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> >> >wrote:
>

> >> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling
> >> >> > places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun.
>
> >> >> Actually if you buy through a dealer you certainly do have to show ID.
>
> >> >> > but the voter
> >> >> > must show ID to vote, correct?
>
> >> >> Depends on the state. As of now only 5 require you to produce ID, but such
> >> >> ID can be had free in those 5 states.
>
> >> >> So let me ask you one.
>

> >> >> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
> >> >> get to vote?
>
> >> > can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass

> >> >voter fraud in america? because bush could not. now be careful, i am

> >> >very good at spotting conservative fraud.
>

> >> Its been provided over and over again. Evidently you are just another
> >> mentally ill leftwinger who blocks things that make him look the fool
> >> from his brain

>
> >> >otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
>

> >> The irony of a leftwinger making that claim..is absolutely marvelous.
>
> >> Gunner
>
> > bush spent millions, found little or nothing. just because a
> >conservative says so, does not make it true.
>
> Obama spend trillions and the economy is going deeper into the toilet.
> Saying its "improving" does not make it true.
>



tarp bailouts were bushs laws. if you want to know where the deficit
is coming from, you do not have to look to far.

"THE CONSERVATIVES" have created the huge deficits that are being
blamed on obama:It’s now more than 10 years later/Bush’s tax cuts are
still with us adding to the debt exactly as predicted:The Bush tax
cuts had an expiration date because Congress knew they’d lead to big
deficits



http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-02/the-fiscal-cliff-we-all-saw-coming


Politics & Policy
The Fiscal Cliff We All Saw Coming
By Brendan Greeley on August 02, 2012


In early 2001, Paul O’Neill, the new secretary of the Treasury for a
new president, began work on a plan for radical tax reform. He wanted
simpler forms and fewer deductions, which would make it easy for
people to prepare their taxes and cost the government less to process
them. He presented a 5-inch-thick binder of research to a senior White
House official. “Don’t ever let that see the light of day,” O’Neill
says he was told. George W. Bush didn’t want to deliver tax reform. He
wanted to deliver the tax cuts he’d promised as a candidate.
He did, in 2001 and then again in 2003. But the kinds of cuts he’d
promised—large ones—would create unsustainable deficits after 10
years, the Congressional Budget Office projected. So they were
designed to expire in a decade, at least on paper. It was “baloney,”
says O’Neill, who publicly supported them at the time. Republicans
never intended to let the cuts lapse. “It was put in there so they
could make a fiscal claim that it wouldn’t damage us. It had nothing
to do with reality.”
It’s now more than 10 years later, and Bush’s tax cuts are still with
us—adding to the debt, exactly as predicted. The temporary tax cuts
have become a subsidy, and as with all subsidies, to take them away is
to create a period of painful readjustment. Politicians worry loudly
about the “fiscal cliff”—the economic turmoil waiting at year’s end
when deep federal spending cuts go into effect and the tax cuts lapse—
as though no one could have seen it coming. There is nothing we know
now that we didn’t already know a decade ago.
On Dec. 1, 1999, candidate George W. Bush was leading the race for the
Republican presidential nomination, looking over his shoulder at Steve
Forbes’s promise of a 17 percent flat tax, which was popular with
conservatives. At a campaign event in Des Moines, Bush vowed that, as
president, he would cut taxes for all Americans. According to a widely
circulated report prepared by Citizens for Tax Justice at the time,
his plan would cost $1.7 trillion over 10 years.
It looked like the money would be there to spend. Fiscal restraint and
a strong economy had given Washington something novel to play with:
The CBO forecast a federal budget surplus of $5.6 trillion by 2011.
“The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf,
I’m here asking for a refund,” Bush told a joint session of Congress
after his election. Trent Lott, then Republican Senate majority
leader, lauded the idea. “It protects the entire Social Security
surplus and leaves resources available for other priorities.”
Those other priorities were more important to voters than lower taxes.
In 2001, the Pew Research Center found that 37 percent of Americans
preferred to use the surplus to fund Social Security and Medicare,
23 percent for domestic spending, and only 19 percent for a tax cut.
Even after selling the idea as a way to give back part of the surplus,
Republicans couldn’t bring on enough Democrats to pass it. To do so
they resorted to reconciliation, the same parliamentary trick
Democrats would use in 2010 to pass health-care reform. That allowed
Republicans to get around a threatened filibuster, but Senate rules
don’t allow bills passed by reconciliation to create deficits more
than 10 years in the future. Thus, the 10-year expiration date.
“Everyone understood that it was 10 years with a wink,” says Tom
Daschle, then the Senate minority leader. Bill Hoagland, a Republican
who ran the Senate Budget Committee staff, says Republicans assumed
they could extend the cuts later. Daschle, who voted against them,
remembers it the same way. “It was a sort of sense that this is a
political thing we’ve gotta get behind us,” he says. “Let’s move on,
there will be plenty of opportunities to take this more seriously in
the future.”
By the next year, things had gotten very serious. The economy had
slowed, and a war was on the way. There were no more surpluses to play
with. In 2002 the federal government ran a deficit of $158 billion.
The White House began a push for more tax cuts, this time justifying
them as a stimulus. Several moderate Republicans warned that further
cuts would make the deficits worse. Yet Hoagland, by then working for
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, recalls the administration had
begun to rely less on budget projections, which, when rosier, had
justified the original tax-cut plan in 2001. “When your faith is all
built on lower taxes,” says Hoagland, “projections don’t matter that
much.”

In early 2001, Paul O’Neill, the new secretary of the Treasury for a
new president, began work on a plan for radical tax reform. He wanted
simpler forms and fewer deductions, which would make it easy for
people to prepare their taxes and cost the government less to process
them. He presented a 5-inch-thick binder of research to a senior White
House official. “Don’t ever let that see the light of day,” O’Neill
says he was told. George W. Bush didn’t want to deliver tax reform. He
wanted to deliver the tax cuts he’d promised as a candidate.
He did, in 2001 and then again in 2003. But the kinds of cuts he’d
promised—large ones—would create unsustainable deficits after 10
years, the Congressional Budget Office projected. So they were
designed to expire in a decade, at least on paper. It was “baloney,”
says O’Neill, who publicly supported them at the time. Republicans
never intended to let the cuts lapse. “It was put in there so they
could make a fiscal claim that it wouldn’t damage us. It had nothing
to do with reality.”
It’s now more than 10 years later, and Bush’s tax cuts are still with
us—adding to the debt, exactly as predicted. The temporary tax cuts
have become a subsidy, and as with all subsidies, to take them away is
to create a period of painful readjustment. Politicians worry loudly
about the “fiscal cliff”—the economic turmoil waiting at year’s end
when deep federal spending cuts go into effect and the tax cuts lapse—
as though no one could have seen it coming. There is nothing we know
now that we didn’t already know a decade ago.
On Dec. 1, 1999, candidate George W. Bush was leading the race for the
Republican presidential nomination, looking over his shoulder at Steve
Forbes’s promise of a 17 percent flat tax, which was popular with
conservatives. At a campaign event in Des Moines, Bush vowed that, as
president, he would cut taxes for all Americans. According to a widely
circulated report prepared by Citizens for Tax Justice at the time,
his plan would cost $1.7 trillion over 10 years.
It looked like the money would be there to spend. Fiscal restraint and
a strong economy had given Washington something novel to play with:
The CBO forecast a federal budget surplus of $5.6 trillion by 2011.
“The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf,
I’m here asking for a refund,” Bush told a joint session of Congress
after his election. Trent Lott, then Republican Senate majority
leader, lauded the idea. “It protects the entire Social Security
surplus and leaves resources available for other priorities.”
Those other priorities were more important to voters than lower taxes.
In 2001, the Pew Research Center found that 37 percent of Americans
preferred to use the surplus to fund Social Security and Medicare,
23 percent for domestic spending, and only 19 percent for a tax cut.
Even after selling the idea as a way to give back part of the surplus,
Republicans couldn’t bring on enough Democrats to pass it. To do so
they resorted to reconciliation, the same parliamentary trick
Democrats would use in 2010 to pass health-care reform. That allowed
Republicans to get around a threatened filibuster, but Senate rules
don’t allow bills passed by reconciliation to create deficits more
than 10 years in the future. Thus, the 10-year expiration date.
“Everyone understood that it was 10 years with a wink,” says Tom
Daschle, then the Senate minority leader. Bill Hoagland, a Republican
who ran the Senate Budget Committee staff, says Republicans assumed
they could extend the cuts later. Daschle, who voted against them,
remembers it the same way. “It was a sort of sense that this is a
political thing we’ve gotta get behind us,” he says. “Let’s move on,
there will be plenty of opportunities to take this more seriously in
the future.”
By the next year, things had gotten very serious. The economy had
slowed, and a war was on the way. There were no more surpluses to play
with. In 2002 the federal government ran a deficit of $158 billion.
The White House began a push for more tax cuts, this time justifying
them as a stimulus. Several moderate Republicans warned that further
cuts would make the deficits worse. Yet Hoagland, by then working for
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, recalls the administration had
begun to rely less on budget projections, which, when rosier, had
justified the original tax-cut plan in 2001. “When your faith is all
built on lower taxes,” says Hoagland, “projections don’t matter that
much.”
The 2003 cuts also came with paper expiration dates of 2004 and 2009.
Congress extended them in 2005, a year tax cuts along with a slack
economy contributed $416 billion to the deficit. It extended them
again in 2007, when the cumulative cuts added an additional
$248 billion. More arrived as a stimulus in 2008, and in the recession
following the financial crisis Barack Obama and the Democratic
Congress added new cuts and agreed to extend the old ones.
Now, more than a decade’s worth of tax cuts are set to come due in six
months, each dreamed up and extended under the fiction that it would
be temporary. In 2011 they contributed $1.1 trillion to the debt. In
total, since 2001, the CBO calculates that tax cuts have put the
Treasury $6.1 trillion in the red. This is what Washington now calls a
crisis: completely predictable arithmetic, compounded over a decade by
a consistent refusal to acknowledge reality. The fiscal cliff has been
clearly visible in the distance for years. The reason we’re talking
about it now is that, right on schedule, it’s finally become too big
to ignore.

The bottom line: The fiscal crisis shouldn’t come as a surprise: The
Bush tax cuts had an expiration date because Congress knew they’d lead
to big deficits.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/8/2012 12:13 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:

> On Aug 8, 1:51 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
>>>> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
>>>> for 150 yrs.
>>
>>>> Gunner
>>
>>> you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
>>> bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,
>>
> lincoln could never be in today's republican party.

That is a "silly" statement. Lincoln didn't free the Slaves until he
was losing the civil war. Lincoln used slaves as pawns.

...but the southern Democrats were even worse.

And today's Democrats use racism and slavery to create pawns out of
blacks and Hispanics. While republicans refuse to use race to buy votes.


Maybe you are correct that Lincoln would be a Democrat today, BOTH
Lincoln and today's Democrats use the blacks and race and slavery to
create pawns for their political gains.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/7/2012 6:27 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Aug 7, 1:40 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>>> Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>>> are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling

>>> places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter

>>> must show ID to vote, correct?
>>

>> "Your reading compression sucks."
>> — mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011
>>
>> Good idea, though. A completed Form 4473 before each vote and an
>> instant background check. I like it!
>
> conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
> can to institute a form of poll taxation.

Article 4.
Section. 4.
*The United States shall guarantee to every State* in this Union a
*Republican* *Form of Government*, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic
Violence.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/8/2012 2:53 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:24:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
> <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> We have to fill out a 4473 and get a background check before we can
>>> exercise OUR right to keep and bear arms. You're OK with THAT, but not
>>> OK with checking ID before voting?
>>>
>>
>> gun rights have expanded under obama.
>
> Gun rights have expanded Despite Obama
>
>>
>> but, society has deemed that a well regulated militia, does not
>> include conservative spree shooters. so if you have nothing to hide,
>> you should be ok.
>
> Odd that of the last 10 "spree shootings" at least 9 were done by
> Democrats......isnt it?

Many of whom were in or near or connected to Liberal colleges or even
graduated or failed out of colleges in some way... why do colleges
spark so many mass murderers?

maybe we need to have the students fill out a form like when they buy a
gun and require a PHOTO ID to sign up for these dangerous college
classes? Keep out all criminals and the insane as we do for gun buyers.

--

*Rumination*

#13 - Being Liberal means, never knowing that, you are your own worst enemy.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/7/2012 9:19 PM, max headroom wrote:
> Nickname unavailable <video6...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in

> news:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:

>
>> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
>>> get to vote?
>
>> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass

>> voter fraud in america?...
>
> Evasion noted.
>
>> ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am

>> very good at spotting conservative fraud.

Socialists are good at mediocrity....


So unless you are mediocre at it, you are violating your ideological
beliefs.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 9:37 am, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

>
> news:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
> >> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X,
> >> >> and
> >> >> get to vote?
> >> >  can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
> >> > voter fraud in america?...
>
> >> Evasion noted.
>
> > where is the empirical evidence?
>
> Already supplied.
>
> And he's right it's still an evasion and you still haven't answered the
> question.
>

and debunked.

> >> > ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am
> >> > very good at spotting conservative fraud.
> >> > otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
>
> >> So did our founding fathers.
>
> > poll taxes are unconstitutional.
>
> Yep, and has nothing to do with this issue.
>

yes they do. it was you that brought it up.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional yet
the government forces you yo get a photo ID to participate in exercising
that right....

If a photo ID is infringing or if a poll tax is infringing then, it's
unconstitutional to force us to get a photo ID for exercising any right
we have.

Do you have to have a PHOTO ID to exercise free speech and can the
government make that a law?

[max headroom]

Nickname unavailable <video6...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in

news:d2fb6c13-e061-402d...@o7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> On Aug 8, 1:25 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:

>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>> innews:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:

>>> On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:

>>>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>>>> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:

>>>>> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
>>>>>> get to vote?

>>>>> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
>>>>> voter fraud in america?...

>>>> Evasion noted.

>>> where is the empirical evidence?

>> Right there, above my comment. Scout asked you a question and you evaded it.

> you said i evaded the question, i did not. that is not empirical
> evidence of wise spread voter fraud. clearly this is over your head.

Apparently the English language is over yours.

Scout asked you, "Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and get to
vote?"

You evaded his question by redirection.

>>>>> ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am
>>>>> very good at spotting conservative fraud.
>>>>> otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.

>>>> So did our founding fathers.

>>> poll taxes are unconstitutional. OBTW, the founders crafted the
>>> constitution, just in case you want to know the founders original
>>> intent.

>> Very good, Grasshopper. The Federalist Papers also explain their intent.

> the federalist papers were a blueprint for a strong centralized government.

Hardly.

> the Constitution created a robust central authority:stating in the
> preamble the explicit responsibility of the government to promote the
> general Welfare:The document also granted the federal government

> broad ?domestic powers including authority to regulate interstate
> commerce, ?the so-called Commerce Clause

Yet the feds now claim the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:be1c7aa6-25b2-4b7a...@l5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 8, 9:37 am, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>> message
>>
>> news:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> >> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>> >> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout"
>> >> > <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr
>> >> >> X,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> get to vote?
>> >> > can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of
>> >> > mass
>> >> > voter fraud in america?...
>>
>> >> Evasion noted.
>>
>> > where is the empirical evidence?
>>
>> Already supplied.
>>
>> And he's right it's still an evasion and you still haven't answered the
>> question.
>>
>
>
>
> and debunked.

So you're saying that the answer you haven't given has already been
debunked?

Hmm... In that case maybe you better respond with a different answer than
the one you intended to.

Or do you mean then evidence?

I've already reposted the tinyurl of it so that you flacky newsreader won't
truncate the URL so that you can actually click it.

Seems you don't want to do so.

Why is that?

Because you don't want to see the evidence?

Well let me post it for you yet again.

And you can show me how you debunked it the last time.

http://tinyurl.com/6t4zz7u

>> >> > ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am
>> >> > very good at spotting conservative fraud.
>> >> > otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
>>
>> >> So did our founding fathers.
>>
>> > poll taxes are unconstitutional.
>>
>> Yep, and has nothing to do with this issue.
>>
>
>
> yes they do. it was you that brought it up.

Cite where I said anything about poll taxes.

[Jeff M]

What would Republican racists and denialists do without Senator Byrd?
Pretty much your entire phony narrative and historical revisionism
depends entirely on that one man.

Nonetheless, it is an inescapable fact of history that the type of
southern racists who historically made up the Dixiecrat wing of the
Democratic Party generations ago were largely purged from the Democratic
Party during the Civil Rights era of the 1960. But those former
Dixiecrats found their new ideological home in the Republican Party,
which sought them out as a part of their despicable "southern strategy."
The Chairman of the RNC even later confessed to and apologized for it
in a rare moment of candor and integrity.

But Senator Byrd did not move with them. Instead, he renounced his
past, reformed his ways, worked to solve racial problems, and stayed a
member of the Democratic Party. But this has allowed dishonest
Republicans ever since to pretend not to see the rampant and pernicious
racism that infests their own party today, while complaining about the
wrongs a single old man once committed as a young man decades ago,
wrongs he has long since denounced and repented in both word and deed.
Nonetheless, the wrongs of that one man's long ago past is enough to
allow dishonest Republicans to at least pretend to stand upon the moral
high ground while actually wallowing in the sewer, covered in the filth
of the racism they are still practicing, concealing or condoning even today.

So you can keep pretending if you want to, but we all know the truth.

[Scout]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:502285F8...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

And just to have fun....here is your empirical creditable verifable evidence
of mass voter fraud in America.

http://tinyurl.com/6t4zz7u

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:882a97a8-cca9-4517...@a9g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

None of which addresses or refutes the specific case presented.

Care to try again, or is thrashing around the best you can do?

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:01ab6f28-bdfc-4f07...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 8, 1:53 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:24:44 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>
>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> We have to fill out a 4473 and get a background check before we can
>> >> exercise OUR right to keep and bear arms. You're OK with THAT, but not
>> >> OK with checking ID before voting?
>>
>> > gun rights have expanded under obama.
>>
>> Gun rights have expanded Despite Obama
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> in reality, bush instituted martial law in new orleans, took away
> peoples guns, and turned over the city to a private army.

Then you can cite the legal document in which he did so.

Oh, but SOB no martial law was declared by Bush or anyone else.

We acknowledge your public display of ignorance.

Now educate yourself.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/09/what_is_martial_law.html

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:d2fb6c13-e061-402d...@o7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 8, 1:25 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>> innews:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> >> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>> >> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>> >>> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout"
>> >>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr
>> >>>> X, and
>> >>>> get to vote?
>> >>> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
>> >>> voter fraud in america?...
>> >> Evasion noted.
>> > where is the empirical evidence?
>>
>> Right there, above my comment. Scout asked you a question and you evaded
>> it.
>>
>
>
> you said i evaded the question, i did not. that is not empirical
> evidence of wise spread voter fraud. clearly this is over your head.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/09/what_is_martial_law.html

Looks pretty solid to me.

So what specifically do you have that refutes this particular case.

And no, some generic BS about how hard it is to prove voter fraud isn't
going to cut it. We have a specific case with a specific set of evidence.
What you asked for. You can either refute it by showing SPECIFICALLY how
what was reported is in error, or you have been given what you asked for.

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
news:d2fb6c13-e061-402d...@o7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 8, 1:25 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>> innews:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> >> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>> >> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>> >>> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout"
>> >>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr
>> >>>> X, and
>> >>>> get to vote?
>> >>> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass
>> >>> voter fraud in america?...
>> >> Evasion noted.
>> > where is the empirical evidence?
>>
>> Right there, above my comment. Scout asked you a question and you evaded
>> it.
>>
>
>
> you said i evaded the question,

You did evade the question I asked you, which was:

"Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
get to vote?"

You then evaded that question by asking another question about empirical
evidence of mass voter fraud, which does not answer my question, seek to
clarify my question, or in any other means indicate an intent to answer my
question.

You changed the subject. That's evasion.



> i did not.

You did. Further no answer to my question has been forthcoming from you to
date. Clearly evasion.

>that is not empirical
> evidence of wise spread voter fraud. clearly this is over your head.

Nope, but this is.

http://tinyurl.com/6t4zz7u

[max headroom]

Nickname unavailable <video6...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in

news:430384c6-272a-473f...@b10g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:

> gee, the KKK was operating in many states, north and south....

There were Democrats north and south.

> ... but today, they are mainly in the south....

Cite?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Then Eric Holder should lose and photo ID be required for both guns and
voting?

[Scout]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:50230A6...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

Or neither....

[SaPeIsMa]

"max headroom" <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:1sqdne95Hr1e6L_N...@posted.localnet...

> Nickname unavailable <video6...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in

> news:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> poll taxes are unconstitutional. OBTW, the founders crafted the

>> constitution, just in case you want to know the founders original
>> intent.
>

> Very good, Grasshopper. The Federalist Papers also explain their intent.
>

Interesting point that since poll taxes and poll tests are unconstitutional
to limit your right to vote
Does that make licenses, license fees and license tests unconstitutional
for Carry permits ?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The founders didn't write Amendment 24....

It was written in 1969.


Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or
other election for President or Vice President, for electors for
President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.


NO STATE OR THE UNITED STATES (Federal Government or any States)


And they used the word "Abridged" which is exactly the terminology used
in the second amendment.


--

*Rumination*

#56 - You have a right to your own opinions, but NOT to your own facts.

[Capt. Justice]

Reports Citing Intelligence on Iran Weapons Program Lack Credibility
. These
reports crop up using flimsy evidence from sketchy sources, but US
intelligence still says Iran has no weapons program
.
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/08/07/reports-citing-intelligence-on-iran-weapons-program-lack-credibility/

by John Glaser, August 07, 2012 .
.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on Tuesday that new intelligence
information indicates 'Iran has made greater progress on developing
components for its nuclear weapons program than the West had previously
realized,' although it offered almost no evidence for this anonymous
claim.

Using 'Western diplomats and Israeli officials/ as sources, Haaretz
reports 'the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Israel agree'
that Iran has a more advanced weapons program than previously thought.
In truth, there is no 'new intelligence' Haaretz can point to.

The report says the new assessment arose after 'Iran refused to allow
inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the base
at Parchin' and satellite photographs released by an American think
tank called the Institute for Science and International Security
allegedly show an attempt to 'clean-up' the site.

These are old accusations that have already been discounted. Similarly
anonymous sources 'from Israel and some other unnamed country or
countries ' were published in the press months ago.

As Inter-Press Service's Gareth Porter reported in March, the
photographs lack credibility, were unconvincing to at least four of six
diplomatic sources sought out by the Associated Press, and were not
conducive to US intelligence.

The current US assessment, according to the most recent National
Intelligence Estimate, is that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program
in 2003 and has not restarted it.

Haaretz's other piece of 'evidence' of this supposedly new intelligence
showing Iran's weaponization activities comes from none other than the
Iranian dissident group - Mujahideen al-Khalq (MEK), which has
precisely zero credibility and is officially considered a terrorist
organization by the US State Department.

'Members of the group told [Britain's Daily Telegraph] that the work of
the Iranian scientists in the 'weapons group' is at an advanced facility
involved warheads and detonators,' Haaretz reports, offering no evidence
beyond the hearsay from an unscrupulous terrorist group which has openly
advocated the overthrow of the Iranian government.

Just four days before this Haaretz report was published, the Los Angeles
Times reported that experts see 'no imminent threat of a nuclear armed
Iran,' contrary to hyperbolic rhetoric and threats of preemptive
attack from the US and Israel.
"This is a window that has been closing for 15 years now, and it's
always imminently about to close," Jamal Abdi, policy director for the
National Iranian American Council told the Los Angeles Times.

"don't see any particular breakthroughs in the Iranian program," says
Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova, a nonproliferation scholar at the Monterey
Institute of International Studies. "It's been on a pretty steady
course," and "there is technically no urgency to prepare for an attack
on Iran.
According to the U.S. intelligence community, the Iranian leadership
hasn't even made the decision to weaponize their program," said Alireza
Nader, senior policy analyst on Iran for Rand Corp. "They've been
creating the technical know-how and the infrastructure, but they haven't
made that decision, and there is much more time than the Israelis
portray there to be."

In February the 'New York Times' ran a front page story entitled
'U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb.'
It reported: 'Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly
consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding ' that concluded that
Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons' program years earlier. The
officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a
2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the
consensus view of America's 16 intelligence agencies.'

Again in March, they reported 'top administration officials have
said that Iran still has not decided to pursue a weapon, reflecting the
intelligence community's secret analysis.' Another in the 'Los
Angeles Times' was similarly headlined, 'U.S. does not believe Iran is
trying to build nuclear bomb.'

Reports like Haaretz's occasionally crop up using flimsy evidence ' if
any at all ' from sketchy sources to create the impression that Iran has
a nuclear weapons program, which it does not, and that Western officials
believe this, which they do not.
.
Last 5 posts by John Glaser .

Clinton Hypocritically Warns Against Supporting Proxies in Syria -
August 7th, 2012

Report: Obama Told Donors Romney Wants Petraeus for VP Slot - August
7th, 2012

Pentagon Drops Plan to Close Domestic Military Bases - August 6th, 2012

Senators Waffle on Harsh Anti-Leak Bill - August 6th, 2012

Syrian PM Defects from Assad Regime - August 6th, 2012

[Capt. Justice]

Obama, Romney Are Reckless on Iran
by Sheldon Richman .
August 6, 2012 .
.
You will strain your eyes looking for a significant difference between
President Obama's and Mitt Romney's positions on Iran and the prospects
of an Israeli attack on the Islamic republic. Both say "all options are
on the table." All. That includes a full-scale military attack with even
nuclear weapons. This isn't alarmism. Iran's facilities are undoubtedly
well protected. No light force would be capable of taking them out.

The Romney campaign created a stir recently when a key foreign-policy
adviser, Dan Senor, seemed to up the ante by saying, "If Israel has to
take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing that
[nuclear weapons] capability, the governor would respect that decision."
The remark apparently went too far, because Romney had to clarify his
position. "I respect the right of Israel to defend itself," he told CBS.
But "because I'm on foreign soil, I don't want to be creating new
foreign policy for my country or in any way to distance myself from the
foreign policy of our nation."

This indicates that Senor said nothing that Romney wishes to disavow.
Senor just said it in the wrong place — on foreign soil. Americans
have this foolish rule that "politics stops at the water's edge." But as
the classical-liberal critic of foreign intervention Felix Morley once
said, politics stops at the water's edge only when policy stops at the
water's edge — which, for the American empire, it does not.

Romney might differ from Obama over where to paint the red line that
Iran may not cross. Obama says Iran must not be allowed to possess a
nuclear weapon. Romney and his old friend Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu say Iran must not be allowed to possess a nuclear
capability. That would include possession of uranium and the relevant
knowledge. Iran has crossed that line already. Hence the
Romney-Netanyahu position sounds marginally more hawkish, though the
real difference may not be terribly large.

Also, Obama has pleaded with Israel to give economic sanctions against
Iran time to work, but Netanyahu said recently he sees no hope in their
working. He appears to be itching for war. On the other hand, he doesn't
have full support from his military and security establishment.

Prominent Israeli officials, active and retired, have said that Iran has
not decided to build a weapon and that war with Iran would be "stupid."
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Iran would not attack Israel even if it
acquired a nuke. It may well be that the war talk is for domestic
consumption or is part of a good-cop/bad-cop strategy with the American
government.

In some ways it doesn't matter. In the past, games of diplomatic chicken
have ended in wars no one wanted, and it could happen again. Obama,
Romney, and Netanyahu should realize how reckless their course is,
though of course they bear no personal risk.

Iran justifiably feels besieged. Economic sanctions against the country,
which were recently intensified by Obama and Congress, constitute
warfare under international law. Moreover, the U.S. and Israeli
governments are conducting covert operations against Iran. In other
words, the United States and Israel are already at war with the Iranian
people. Great hardship is imposed on them, because their ability to
trade for consumer goods has been disrupted and the value of their
currency undermined. It's bizarre that every time the Iranian government
says it is prepared to defend itself from attack, it is accused of
threatening others. Who's threatening whom?

This is where the policy imposed by the humane Obama and supported by
Romney has brought the world.

And why? They will tell you that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon.
But there is no evidence that Iran is developing one. Its religious
leader has forsworn such weapons, and the country's uranium is under the
close watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency; that is more than
one can say about Israel, which has hundreds of nukes and refuses to
join Iran in signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

War with Iran would be a disaster for everyone except the war
profiteers. Preventing it must be a priority.
____ .
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in
Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare
State, and editor of
The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog "Free Association" at
www.sheldonrichman.com. Send him email.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Aug 8, 6:33 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:

>> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>> >On Aug 7, 7:55 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>> >> >On Aug 7, 1:40 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>

>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>> >> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up polling

>> >> >> >places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun. but the voter

>> >> >> >must show ID to vote, correct?
>>

>> >> >> "Your reading compression sucks."
>> >> >>  — mrLookout, Tue, March 22, 2011
>>
>> >> >> Good idea, though. A completed Form 4473 before each vote and an
>> >> >> instant background check. I like it!
>>
>> >> > conservative have always hated democracy. they will find any way they
>> >> >can to institute a form of poll taxation.
>>

>> >> We have to fill out a 4473 and get a background check before we can
>> >> exercise OUR right to keep and bear arms. You're OK with THAT, but not
>> >> OK with checking ID before voting?
>>
>> > gun rights have expanded under obama.
>>

>> He just stood there and watched. It was already in motion and he had
>> absolutely no say in the matter.
>>
>> Don't even fucking TRY to give that dumb ass any credit.

> i give him credit for not stopping it. if he was a tyrant, he would
>have.

Then you're also giving me credit for not destroying the solar system,
because I didn't do that, either.

>> [chuckle]

>>
>> >but, society has deemed that a well regulated militia, does not
>> >include conservative spree shooters. so if you have nothing to hide,
>> >you should be ok.
>>

>> Ah, so you're OK with random house to house body cavity searches,
>> then? Because if you've got nothing to hide....
>
>
> then why did you guys let bush get away with gutting the bill of
>rights you stupid fuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean the one Obama CONTINUES to gut? That one?

Um, how are "we" supposed to stop Bush?

What right do you no longer have?

>> >> You leftists always were a bunch of hypocritical assholes.
>>
>> >> [chuckle]
>>
>> > poll taxes are unconstitutional.
>>
>> Requiring a photo ID isn't a tax.
>
> yes it is.

No, it isn't. Only brain-damaged leftist retards don't have a photo
ID.

Solution: give them one.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

I'm agreeing with you. You never said that.

[chuckle]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Did you give Obama credit for FAST AND FURIOUS?


Was that an attempt to change public opinion by letting guns walk into
the most violent criminals hands?


Obama was attempting to get you to beg him to steal your RIGHTS from you.
--

*Rumination*

#38 - Using the LAW to steal is the ultimate crime.

[max headroom]

SaPeIsMa <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote in news:jvv67k$bn7$2...@dont-email.me:

Very good, Grasshopper.

How many of these whiners paid for a Voter Permit?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Both rights use the word "infringe" as in may NOT infringe, and yet they
infringe on amendment 2 but then Liberals want to say that we can't
infringe the same way on amendment 24.

I say you can't infringe on either amendment.


--

*Rumination*

#25 - I'd rather be FREE and poor, than to have my life micromanaged by
Socialists.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/9/2012 12:42 PM, max headroom wrote:

Both rights use the word "infringe" as in may NOT infringe, and yet they
infringe on amendment 2 but then Liberals want to say that we can't
infringe the same way on amendment 24.

I say you can't infringe on either amendment.

And Obama Care creates Slavery by violating the 13th amendment, and if
we can do that then ObamaCare can be used as a "precedence" for
creating a NEW TAX law that taxes NON land owners.... If you own *NO*
land in the United States then we can tax you for your lack of economic
investment in our country that supplies you with Obama's ROADS AND BRIDGES.

[SaPeIsMa]

"max headroom" <maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote in message

news:NtCdnTT73oRMcb7N...@posted.localnet...

Careful there
Someone might argue that the cost of a Voter ID could be a "poll tax"..

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Maybe the States will offer them for free if you have no drivers license.

--

*Rumination*

#5 - You can't have Social Justice and Equal Justice at the same time,
they are 'mutually exclusive'.

[Scout]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:50241438...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

And all the states that have a strict Photo ID requirement do.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

That begs the question of why I have to pay $200 for a CCW permit to
carry my gun and exercise my RIGHTS?


Shouldn't it also be free to those poor people that want to use their
right to carry a gun for their personal protection?





--

*Rumination*

#1 - Liberalism is based on race and is inherently racist because in
Liberalism, race is the one thing from which all else is derived.

[max headroom]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:50241438...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

As long as they're accepted at gun shops... ;)

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 12:22 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote innews:d2fb6c13-e061-402d...@o7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 1:25 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
> >> innews:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> >>> On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >>>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
> >>>> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:

> >>>>> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and
> >>>>>> get to vote?
> >>>>> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of mass

> >>>>> voter fraud in america?...
> >>>> Evasion noted.
> >>> where is the empirical evidence?
> >> Right there, above my comment. Scout asked you a question and you evaded it.
> >  you said i evaded the question, i did not. that is not empirical
> > evidence of wise spread voter fraud. clearly this is over your head.
>
> Apparently the English language is over yours.
>

> Scout asked you, "Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr X, and get to
> vote?"
>

> You evaded his question by redirection.
>

yet, it has not led to widespread voter fraud. i asked where is the
beef? your type simply cannot supply it. its a right for americans to
vote without poll taxes, period.



> >>>>> ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am

> >>>>> very good at spotting conservative fraud.

> >>>>> otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
> >>>> So did our founding fathers.

> >>> poll taxes are unconstitutional. OBTW, the founders crafted the
> >>> constitution, just in case you want to know the founders original
> >>> intent.
> >> Very good, Grasshopper. The Federalist Papers also explain their intent.

> >  the federalist papers were a blueprint for a strong centralized government.
>
> Hardly.
>



yes they were, and its a historical fact. otherwise the constitution
would not have included the broad powers to tax, negate state law,
regulate, tax. legislate, mandate and to promote and provide for the
general welfare. you simply cannot refute it:)))))


> > the Constitution created a robust central authority:stating in the
> > preamble the explicit responsibility of the government to promote the
> > general Welfare:The document also granted the federal government
> > broad ?domestic powers including authority to regulate interstate
> > commerce, ?the so-called Commerce Clause
>
> Yet the feds now claim the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

its constitutional.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 3:29 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
>
> news:be1c7aa6-25b2-4b7a...@l5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 9:37 am, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>

> > wrote:
> >> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in

> >> message
>
> >>news:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

>
> >> > On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> >> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
> >> >> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> > On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout"
> >> >> > <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr
> >> >> >> X,
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> get to vote?
> >> >> >  can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of
> >> >> > mass
> >> >> > voter fraud in america?...
>
> >> >> Evasion noted.
>
> >> > where is the empirical evidence?
>

> >> Already supplied.
>
> >> And he's right it's still an evasion and you still haven't answered the
> >> question.
>
> > and debunked.
>
> So you're saying that the answer you haven't given has already been
> debunked?
>
> Hmm... In that case maybe you better respond with a different answer than
> the one you intended to.
>
> Or do you mean then evidence?
>
> I've already reposted the tinyurl of it so that you flacky newsreader won't
> truncate the URL so that you can actually click it.
>



and it has been debunked. we know that there were moles in the doj,
they have been refuted.


> Seems you don't want to do so.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Because you don't want to see the evidence?
>
> Well let me post it for you yet again.
>
> And you can show me how you debunked it the last time.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6t4zz7u

> >> >> > ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am
> >> >> > very good at spotting conservative fraud.
> >> >> > otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
>
> >> >> So did our founding fathers.
>
> >> > poll taxes are unconstitutional.
>

> >> Yep, and has nothing to do with this issue.
>
> > yes they do. it was you that brought it up.
>
> Cite where I said anything about poll taxes.
>



its a backdoor poll tax, period. a citizen should not have to buy a
i.d. from a conservative to vote.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 3:31 pm, Jeff M <BeenTh...@DoneThat.org> wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 11:15 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8/8/2012 12:13 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >> On Aug 8, 1:51 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >>> <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Odd that an apparent Democrat would be making that claim. As it has been
> >>>>> a Democratic standard to tax at the polls to prevent blacks from voting
> >>>>> for 150 yrs.
>
> >>>>> Gunner
>
> >>>> you must be speaking of the southern conservative democrats, that
> >>>> bolted from the democratic party, and went to the republican party,
>
> > Like (D)Senator Robert Byrd?
>
> What would Republican racists and denialists do without Senator Byrd?
> Pretty much your entire phony narrative and historical revisionism
> depends entirely on that one man.
>
> Nonetheless, it is an inescapable fact of history that the type of
> southern racists who historically made up the Dixiecrat wing of the
> Democratic Party generations ago were largely purged from the Democratic
> Party during the Civil Rights era of the 1960.  But those former
> Dixiecrats found their new ideological home in the Republican Party,
> which sought them out as a part of their despicable "southern strategy."
>   The Chairman of the RNC even later confessed to and apologized for it
> in a rare moment of candor and integrity.
>
> But Senator Byrd did not move with them.  Instead, he renounced his
> past, reformed his ways, worked to solve racial problems, and stayed a
> member of the Democratic Party.  But this has allowed dishonest
> Republicans ever since to pretend not to see the rampant and pernicious
> racism that infests their own party today, while complaining about the
> wrongs a single old man once committed as a young man decades ago,
> wrongs he has long since denounced and repented in both word and deed.
> Nonetheless, the wrongs of that one man's long ago past is enough to
> allow dishonest Republicans to at least pretend to stand upon the moral
> high ground while actually wallowing in the sewer, covered in the filth
> of the racism they are still practicing, concealing or condoning even today.
>
> So you can keep pretending if you want to, but we all know the truth.

yes we do.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 3:36 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/09/wha...

you got yours, i got mine.


http://rense.com/general67/nix.htm








Second Amendment
Nixed In New Orleans
By Kurt Nimmo
Another Day in the Empire
9-10-5

New Orleans is no longer part of America. It is a brave new world
devised by FEMA and the Ministry of Homeland Security. In the new New
Orleans, there are no constitutional rights. Not only are soldiers
allowed to break down doors (as they do in Iraq) in violation of the
Fourth Amendment and even "shoot to kill" if they believe they are
threatened (as soldiers in Iraq "shoot to kill" grandmothers and kids
at Israeli-styled checkpoints), now the Second Amendment no longer
exists.

"Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police
officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered
firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation
of the residents still living here," reports the New York Times. "No
civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or
other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of
police. 'Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons,' he said."

Of course, the trashing of the Second Amendment is restricted to poor
people. Rich people will be allowed to hire armed guards. Nixing the
Second Amendment "apparently does not apply to hundreds of security
guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect
property. The guards, employees of private security companies like
Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass
said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had
no plans to make them give up their weapons."

Indeed, New Orleans has become a lot like Iraq. You may recall
Blackwater, the security company hired to protect bureaucrats,
soldiers, and intelligence officers in Iraq. You may also recall that
four Blackwater mercenaries were brutally killed in Fallujah, their
mutated and burned bodies strung up on a bridge to the cheers of Sunni
insurgents who don't take kindly to Americans (or anybody else)
invading their country and pushing them around (and bombing their
mosques and neighborhoods). Now that Bush and FEMA and the Ministry of
Homeland Security have trashed the Second Amendment in the new New
Orleans, chances are pretty slim the locals will be rebelling against
the military occupation of their once proud city. Iraq is awash in
weapons (many of them sold to Saddam by Bush's daddy and Reagan) but
the new New Orleans will soon be clean as a whistle-not even a BB gun
will be allowed.

"Nearly two weeks after the floods began, New Orleans has turned into
an armed camp, patrolled by thousands of local, state, and federal law
enforcement officers, as well as National Guard troops and active-duty
soldiers," the New York Times continues. "While armed looters roamed
unchecked last week, the city is now calm. No arrests were made on
Wednesday night or this morning, and the police received only 10 calls
for service, a police spokesman said."

No mention here of the obvious fact many residents armed themselves to
ward off roving gangs of criminals-a distinct minority-who took
advantage of the situation when the police abandoned their posts. As
for the small number of "calls for service," this really is a no-
brainer-the military has spent the last week methodically depopulating
the city (and it is difficult to call the police when phones are
inoperable).

Our neolib rulers plan for the new New Orleans to serve as a template
for the rest of the nation where the Constitution now hangs
precariously by a frayed thread. In the event of a "terrorist attack"
and the imposition of martial law, we can expect the lessons learned
in the new New Orleans to be practiced elsewhere-shoot to kill for
"looting" food and water, doors kicked in by jackbooted troops who
ignore the desperate pleas of hungry and thirsty citizens and
lasciviously demand women flash their breasts (as if life is a segment
of the Girls Gone Wild video), and treating citizens as if they are al-
Qaeda suicide bombers.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 3:32 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>

wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
>

> news:882a97a8-cca9-4517...@a9g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 9:27 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>

> > wrote:
> >> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
> >> message
>

> >>news:2f06d52f-c0af-489a...@w8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 7, 6:40 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>

> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
> >> >> message
>

> >> >>news:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

>
> >> >> > On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout"
> >> >> > <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> >> >> > wrote:
>

> >> >> >> > are you saying that the tea party has the right to shoot up
> >> >> >> > polling
> >> >> >> > places without the fear of showing a ID to buy a gun.
>

> >> >> >> Actually if you buy through a dealer you certainly do have to show
> >> >> >> ID.
>

> >> >> >> > but the voter
> >> >> >> > must show ID to vote, correct?
>

> >> >> >> Depends on the state. As of now only 5 require you to produce ID,
> >> >> >> but
> >> >> >> such
> >> >> >> ID can be had free in those 5 states.
>
> >> >> >> So let me ask you one.
>

> >> >> >> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up, claim to be Mr
> >> >> >> X,
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> get to vote?
>
> >> >> > can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable evidence of
> >> >> > mass
> >> >> > voter fraud in america?
>

> >> >> Yes.

>
> >> >> > because bush could not. now be careful, i am
> >> >> > very good at spotting conservative fraud.
> >> >> > otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates democracy.
>

> >> >> " the U.S. Attorney in Chicago at the time, Daniel Webb, estimated
> >> >> that
> >> >> at
> >> >> least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in the city)
> >> >> had
> >> >> been cast."
>
> >> >>http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/where-theres-smoke-t...
>
> >> >> I think when 10% or more of the votes in an area are fraudulent. Then
> >> >> it's
> >> >> safe to say that is evidence of mass voter fraud.
>
> >> >> Further if you dig into it, I  think you will find that the number of
> >> >> size
> >> >> of the voter fraud cases have been growing over the last several
> >> >> years,
> >> >> and
> >> >> before it grows into a massive problem, we need to nip it in the bud.
>
> >> >> Insuring that the person actually voting is the person eligible to
> >> >> vote
> >> >> is
> >> >> IMO not an unreasonable condition to set.
>
> >> >> Indeed, I'm of the mind that like driver's licenses, one's voter
> >> >> registration should periodically require a personal renewal. That
> >> >> would
> >> >> tend
> >> >> to automatically 'clean the roles' of ineligible voters. Heck, in the
> >> >> last
> >> >> election I went with my sister to my old polling place and I noted my
> >> >> father
> >> >> is STILL listed even though he's been dead for over a decade and they
> >> >> have
> >> >> been notified of this at least twice before. If I had been dishonest,
> >> >> I
> >> >> could have cast another ballot by simply claiming to be my father.
> >> >> Clearly
> >> >> something needs to be done to clear up the roles of registered voters
> >> >> and
> >> >> if
> >> >> nothing else to make sure the person voting is actually the person
> >> >> registered to vote.
>
> >> > its the heritage foundation. also it said this,
>
> >> > The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name
> >> > changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
>
> >> Apparently your reader snipped the URL line.
>
> >> But let me give it to you in a shorter form.
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/6t4zz7u
>
> >> > its a good chance its been debunked.
>
> >> Why because it's not something you want to hear?
>
> >> I will just note that I doubt that it's been debunked since the
> >> investigation was conducted by the US Department of Justice.

> None of which addresses or refutes the specific case presented.
>
> Care to try again, or is thrashing around the best you can do?

why, if there was wide spread voter fraud, it would be all over the
news, and when bush looked, he would have grasped it. why try to
debunk, whats already been debunked.

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
news:6ed928c6-f70e-43a9...@u8g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Sorry, but your simply claiming it's been debunked and empty assertions of
moles does NOT refute the evidence presented.

If you wish to do so, then you're going to have to produce some ACTUAL proof
to support your claims that the evidence produced is wrong.

Otherwise, your request has been fulfilled and you are now simply in denial
of reality.

>> Seems you don't want to do so.
>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>> Because you don't want to see the evidence?
>>
>> Well let me post it for you yet again.
>>
>> And you can show me how you debunked it the last time.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6t4zz7u
>>
>
>
>
> you mean the guys who were involved in voter suppression
> themselves:))))
>
> http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/
>
> • Brennan Center for Justice
> • Contact Us
> • News
> • Litigation
> • Commentary
> • Case Studies
By State
> • Case Studies
By Issue
> • Analysis & Reports
> • Home
> •
> • Allegations of widespread fraud by malevolent voters are
> easy to
> make, but often prove to be inflated or inaccurate.

<yawn>

Which does not address this case, and which is NOT refuted by this source.

Indeed, in this case the fraud WAS proven and shown to be the largest case
of voter fraud in US history.

Simply waving your hands in the air and citing some generic source that
states that such cases are hard to prove and so on, does NOT refute the
findings of this case in which such fraud WAS proven.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 8, 3:42 pm, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

yet, that is not today's alleged wide spread voter fraud. wide spread
voter fraud means rampant, all over america, all of the time. you dig
up crap from 3 decades ago. what i am more worried about, is activist
conservative supreme court justices, that choose a winner in 2000.

here is the facts,

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/

[Scout]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:baeddedc-0713-4fd8...@n6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

It was.

>and when bush looked, he would have grasped it.

Don't know if he looked, found it, or what, nor do I care. Your hand waving
of excuses does not refute the evidence presented to you which matches your
criteria.

> why try to
> debunk, whats already been debunked.

Since it hasn't been debunked and your hand waving hasn't and isn't going to
do so....you might actually have to prove that the case presented did not
actually occur, otherwise it did and your denial isn't going to alter that.