Republicans repetedly keep blacks from voting

[Truthmatters]

D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website



As for the public interest, the court found overwhelmingly that instances of voter fraud were dwarfed by voter suppression. Specifically, the type of voter fraud that the decree prevents the RNC from combating through voter caging and intimidation at the polls, “in-person” fraud, is practically nonexistent. Conversely, the court noted that there is ample evidence of the potential and prevalence of voter suppression, such as that recently documented by the Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).


How is it the media never lets us know about these cases?

 

[Jarhead]

D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website



As for the public interest, the court found overwhelmingly that instances of voter fraud were dwarfed by voter suppression. Specifically, the type of voter fraud that the decree prevents the RNC from combating through voter caging and intimidation at the polls, “in-person” fraud, is practically nonexistent. Conversely, the court noted that there is ample evidence of the potential and prevalence of voter suppression, such as that recently documented by the Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).


How is it the media never lets us know about these cases?

You truly are pathetic.

 

[jswiftproposal]

D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website

As for the public interest, the court found overwhelmingly that instances of voter fraud were dwarfed by voter suppression. Specifically, the type of voter fraud that the decree prevents the RNC from combating through voter caging and intimidation at the polls, “in-person” fraud, is practically nonexistent. Conversely, the court noted that there is ample evidence of the potential and prevalence of voter suppression, such as that recently documented by the Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).

How is it the media never lets us know about these cases?

You truly are pathetic.

How is he pathetic? He has provided evidence for his claim, although it is just one piece and it is a broad claim, yet he still supported it. You on the other hand are blindly attacking him because he is pointing something out that many people would rather ignore. It doesn't mean that it matters to anybody who doesn't care, but it most certainly does not justify you attacking him?

"You truly are pathetic"

I mean... Really?

A kindergartner could make a more compelling accusation. They would at least say that he is a "meany because he yells at me". You just dislike him. Bigot.

 

[WillowTree]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFpfQpuuVzI]YouTube - Black Panther "Security" people intimidating voters at polls[/ame]

 

[Jarhead]

D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website

As for the public interest, the court found overwhelmingly that instances of voter fraud were dwarfed by voter suppression. Specifically, the type of voter fraud that the decree prevents the RNC from combating through voter caging and intimidation at the polls, “in-person” fraud, is practically nonexistent. Conversely, the court noted that there is ample evidence of the potential and prevalence of voter suppression, such as that recently documented by the Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).

How is it the media never lets us know about these cases?

You truly are pathetic.

How is he pathetic? He has provided evidence for his claim, although it is just one piece and it is a broad claim, yet he still supported it. You on the other hand are blindly attacking him because he is pointing something out that many people would rather ignore. It doesn't mean that it matters to anybody who doesn't care, but it most certainly does not justify you attacking him?

"You truly are pathetic"

I mean... Really?

A kindergartner could make a more compelling accusation. They would at least say that he is a "meany because he yells at me". You just dislike him. Bigot.

On the oustside, you are correct. However, you do not know her history on this board. She regurgitates "activist" claims and calls them facts and then tells US to prove them wrong.

And, of course, if it is something rediculous, how can you prove it wrong as there is nothing out there even addressingt rediculous claims.

SO then she takes the high road and calls us all liars for not being able to prove her rediculous regurgitation of a far left wing claim.

So I have learned to never again try to research the crap she comes up with.

You will see in time.

 

[Truthmatters]

It seems the republican masses dont care what the republican party does to win elections.

I wonder why the "liberal" media refuses to report on these repeted criminal acts against American voters?

 

[Truthmatters]

You truly are pathetic.

How is he pathetic? He has provided evidence for his claim, although it is just one piece and it is a broad claim, yet he still supported it. You on the other hand are blindly attacking him because he is pointing something out that many people would rather ignore. It doesn't mean that it matters to anybody who doesn't care, but it most certainly does not justify you attacking him?

"You truly are pathetic"

I mean... Really?

A kindergartner could make a more compelling accusation. They would at least say that he is a "meany because he yells at me". You just dislike him. Bigot.

On the oustside, you are correct. However, you do not know her history on this board. She regurgitates "activist" claims and calls them facts and then tells US to prove them wrong.

And, of course, if it is something rediculous, how can you prove it wrong as there is nothing out there even addressingt rediculous claims.

SO then she takes the high road and calls us all liars for not being able to prove her rediculous regurgitation of a far left wing claim.

So I have learned to never again try to research the crap she comes up with.

You will see in time.

No you just ignore cold hard facts you dont like ,just like you did here.

 

[Truthmatters]

YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly

Now watch the tape you fucking idiot and tell me where those men did anything to intimidate anyone?

 

[hortysir]

YouTube - Black Panther "Security" people intimidating voters at polls

You beat me to it

 

[Jarhead]

It seems the republican masses dont care what the republican party does to win elections.

I wonder why the "liberal" media refuses to report on these repeted criminal acts against American voters?

Same reason they did not report on that activists claim that the average death age of a Valdez clean up worker was 52.

It was not true and not worthy of reporting.

 

[Jarhead]

D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website

As for the public interest, the court found overwhelmingly that instances of voter fraud were dwarfed by voter suppression. Specifically, the type of voter fraud that the decree prevents the RNC from combating through voter caging and intimidation at the polls, “in-person” fraud, is practically nonexistent. Conversely, the court noted that there is ample evidence of the potential and prevalence of voter suppression, such as that recently documented by the Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).

How is it the media never lets us know about these cases?

You truly are pathetic.

How is he pathetic? He has provided evidence for his claim, although it is just one piece and it is a broad claim, yet he still supported it. You on the other hand are blindly attacking him because he is pointing something out that many people would rather ignore. It doesn't mean that it matters to anybody who doesn't care, but it most certainly does not justify you attacking him?

"You truly are pathetic"

I mean... Really?

A kindergartner could make a more compelling accusation. They would at least say that he is a "meany because he yells at me". You just dislike him. Bigot.

Now I think you may see what I mean?

 

[hortysir]

YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly

Now watch the tape you fucking idiot and tell me where those men did anything to intimidate anyone?

I did, ****.
Did you?
Why the stick?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How is he pathetic? He has provided evidence for his claim, although it is just one piece and it is a broad claim, yet he still supported it. You on the other hand are blindly attacking him because he is pointing something out that many people would rather ignore. It doesn't mean that it matters to anybody who doesn't care, but it most certainly does not justify you attacking him?

"You truly are pathetic"

I mean... Really?

A kindergartner could make a more compelling accusation. They would at least say that he is a "meany because he yells at me". You just dislike him. Bigot.

On the oustside, you are correct. However, you do not know her history on this board. She regurgitates "activist" claims and calls them facts and then tells US to prove them wrong.

And, of course, if it is something rediculous, how can you prove it wrong as there is nothing out there even addressingt rediculous claims.

SO then she takes the high road and calls us all liars for not being able to prove her rediculous regurgitation of a far left wing claim.

So I have learned to never again try to research the crap she comes up with.

You will see in time.

No you just ignore cold hard facts you dont like ,just like you did here.

Like how "republicans" somehow stole Florida in 2000? 3 Democratic controlled counties run by democrats, ballots made by democrats, voting controlled by democrats?

You are a liar and piece of garbage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website



As for the public interest, the court found overwhelmingly that instances of voter fraud were dwarfed by voter suppression. Specifically, the type of voter fraud that the decree prevents the RNC from combating through voter caging and intimidation at the polls, “in-person” fraud, is practically nonexistent. Conversely, the court noted that there is ample evidence of the potential and prevalence of voter suppression, such as that recently documented by the Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).


How is it the media never lets us know about these cases?

Because they are 30 years out of date?

 

[WillowTree]

It seems the republican masses dont care what the republican party does to win elections.

I wonder why the "liberal" media refuses to report on these repeted criminal acts against American voters?

don't you have some dead people to dig up? get em registered??

 

[WillowTree]

YouTube - Black Panther "Security" people intimidating voters at polls

You beat me to it

you have to be on the ready.. tm brings this up periodically.. you'll get the hang of it soon.

 

[Annie]

YouTube - Black Panther "Security" people intimidating voters at polls

ADAMS: Inside the Black Panther case - Washington Times

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam....

 

[Truthmatters]

so you people are going to refuse to address the subject of the thread?

The facts you dont like you just pretend dont exsist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly

Now watch the tape you fucking idiot and tell me where those men did anything to intimidate anyone?

The DoJ won a default judgment against them because they didn't even try to claim they were not intimidating voters. Keep defending the Democrats blindly and you will be the fool that everyone says you are.

EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case - Washington Times

The money quote:

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

 

[Truthmatters]

D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website



As for the public interest, the court found overwhelmingly that instances of voter fraud were dwarfed by voter suppression. Specifically, the type of voter fraud that the decree prevents the RNC from combating through voter caging and intimidation at the polls, “in-person” fraud, is practically nonexistent. Conversely, the court noted that there is ample evidence of the potential and prevalence of voter suppression, such as that recently documented by the Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).


How is it the media never lets us know about these cases?

Because they are 30 years out of date?

No it is not, I guess you failed to read teh link huh?

in the 20 years since they were caught they have broken the dercee repetedly.