Republicans repetedly keep blacks from voting

[hortysir]

then read what you are given and accept the facts that the republicans were forced to sign this consent decree because of their crimes and have been found in violation of the decree multiple times since.

Tell me why the "liberal" media doesnt report on thes cases?

What crimes?
When?
Where?
Against whom?

 

[Yurt]

ORDERED that the annexed settl~ment agreement between
certain plaintiffs and certain defendants, without any finding by
this Court of, and without any admission of, liability or
wrongdoing by them or by any other person or entity be, and the
same hereby adopted by this Court as its final order in the
above-entitled matter; and it is

poor truthmatters....apparently the truth doesn't matter

 

[Truthmatters]

http://brennan.3cdn.net/484c0b5d69fb0379c1_kzm6b9f2t.pdf


Here is the consent drecreee itsself.

How fucked up does a party have to be for its monions to deny court documented proof of your paties crimes?

Why are you so partisan you refuse court documentation?

they were not convicted, next

Read the definition I gave you, its states it is a tactic to avoid the cost of trial, it is treated as an court decision.

 

[Truthmatters]

ordered that the annexed settl~ment agreement between
certain plaintiffs and certain defendants, without any finding by
this court of, and without any admission of, liability or
wrongdoing by them or by any other person or entity be, and the
same hereby adopted by this court as its final order in the
above-entitled matter; and it is

poor truthmatters....apparently the truth doesn't matter

link!

 

[Yurt]

ORDERED that the annexed settl~ment agreement between
certain plaintiffs and certain defendants, without any finding by
this Court of, and without any admission of, liability or
wrongdoing by them or by any other person or entity be, and the
same hereby adopted by this Court as its final order in the
above-entitled matter; and it is

poor truthmatters....apparently the truth doesn't matter

 

[Truthmatters]

What is a Consent Decree?

 

[Yurt]

ordered that the annexed settl~ment agreement between
certain plaintiffs and certain defendants, without any finding by
this court of, and without any admission of, liability or
wrongdoing by them or by any other person or entity be, and the
same hereby adopted by this court as its final order in the
above-entitled matter; and it is

poor truthmatters....apparently the truth doesn't matter

link!

LMAO....that is your link dumbass

http://brennan.3cdn.net/484c0b5d69fb0379c1_kzm6b9f2t.pdf

second paragraph

 

[hortysir]

poor truthmatters....apparently the truth doesn't matter

link!

LMAO....that is your link dumbass

http://brennan.3cdn.net/484c0b5d69fb0379c1_kzm6b9f2t.pdf

second paragraph

PWNED!!!!!

 

[Yurt]

link!

LMAO....that is your link dumbass

http://brennan.3cdn.net/484c0b5d69fb0379c1_kzm6b9f2t.pdf

second paragraph

PWNED!!!!!

yeah...thats rather embarrassing

i don't think she has even read her own links, she probably got the entire idea from some crazy left wing blog and came here and tried to pass it off as her own

 

[Truthmatters]

poor truthmatters....apparently the truth doesn't matter

link!

LMAO....that is your link dumbass

http://brennan.3cdn.net/484c0b5d69fb0379c1_kzm6b9f2t.pdf

second paragraph

Good job Yurt.

Now deal with the fact that they have broken the decree several times which is why they could not get it vacated.

You were right on this and I accept the court documented evidence.

Now will you accept the fact that your party have repeted worked to keep voters from their sacred right by the evidence of these court documents?

Why did they not fight the charges if they were innocent?

They had the money to fight it but knew they would be found guilty and would have ended up paying the Dems costs too.

Prove they were innocent, them not having to admitt guilt does not make them innocent now does it.

 

[Yurt]

link!

LMAO....that is your link dumbass

http://brennan.3cdn.net/484c0b5d69fb0379c1_kzm6b9f2t.pdf

second paragraph

Good job Yurt.

Now deal with the fact that they have broken the decree several times which is why they could not get it vacated.

You were right on this and I accept the court documented evidence.

Now will you accept the fact that your party have repeted worked to keep voters from their sacred right by the evidence of these court documents?

Why did they not fight the charges if they were innocent?

They had the money to fight it but knew they would be found guilty and would have ended up paying the Dems costs too.

Prove they were innocent, them not having to admitt guilt does not make them innocent now does it.

when the same arguement was used against acorn, you said they were never convicted....try some honesty here and use the same reasoning....

they have never been convicted of any crimes, at least none that you have linked to....i don't have to prove they are innocent, YOU have to prove they were convicted of crimeS....you keep saying they have been convicted, yet you can't produce a single conviction

 

[hortysir]

link!

LMAO....that is your link dumbass

http://brennan.3cdn.net/484c0b5d69fb0379c1_kzm6b9f2t.pdf

second paragraph

Good job Yurt.

Now deal with the fact that they have broken the decree several times which is why they could not get it vacated.

You were right on this and I accept the court documented evidence.

Now will you accept the fact that your party have repeted worked to keep voters from their sacred right by the evidence of these court documents?

Why did they not fight the charges if they were innocent?

They had the money to fight it but knew they would be found guilty and would have ended up paying the Dems costs too.

Prove they were innocent, them not having to admitt guilt does not make them innocent now does it.

When?
Against whom, exactly?
What state?
Who was the judge? The plaintiff?

 

[Truthmatters]

"Due to multiple allegations of voter suppression, the RNC has found itself defending intervenor lawsuits to enforce the decree. As the DNC does not face similar lawsuits, in the interest of equity the court changed the decree so only the DNC could seek to enforce it. The court also recognized that the requirement for the RNC to seek 20 day pre-clearance approval of any new “ballot security” tactics does not allow it to monitor new voter registrations in the few states that have adopted registration deadlines within 20 days of elections. The term was changed to a 10 day pre-clearance requirement. In response to the complaint that the decree’s prohibition on voter intimidation at the polls was too vague, the definition of this tactic was clarified. Finally, in the hope that the RNC might change its behavior toward minority voters in the future, the court added a contingent termination date to the decree of eight years. If the decree is violated again, the deadline will be extended."



http://www.nsclc.org/areas/federal-...-consent-decree-prohibiting-voter-suppression

 

[Truthmatters]

"The RNC chose not to litigate and settled the suit. The resulting decree restricted the RNC’s ability to engage in tactics which have a documented effect of suppressing the vote of qualified minorities. Four separate enforcement actions have been brought against the RNC for violations of the decree."


http://www.nsclc.org/areas/federal-...-consent-decree-prohibiting-voter-suppression


Why did they try to get this vacated?

Because they want to be free to disenfranchise black voters without getting caught so easily

 

[syrenn]

Due to multiple allegations of voter suppression, the RNC has found itself defending intervenor lawsuits to enforce the decree. As the DNC does not face similar lawsuits, in the interest of equity the court changed the decree so only the DNC could seek to enforce it. The court also recognized that the requirement for the RNC to seek 20 day pre-clearance approval of any new “ballot security” tactics does not allow it to monitor new voter registrations in the few states that have adopted registration deadlines within 20 days of elections. The term was changed to a 10 day pre-clearance requirement. In response to the complaint that the decree’s prohibition on voter intimidation at the polls was too vague, the definition of this tactic was clarified. Finally, in the hope that the RNC might change its behavior toward minority voters in the future, the court added a contingent termination date to the decree of eight years. If the decree is violated again, the deadline will be extended.

You do know that you have to put things in [quotes] blah blah blah [/quotes] when you cut and paste?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How Dare They keep black folk from voting!!

 

[Granny]

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?

Er ... the Black Panthers are not exactly a White Republican group. Why would you bring this up almost 2 years after it happened?

 

[Truthmatters]

It is ongoing .

They are charged all the time with new crimes.

GOP Challenging Voter Registrations (washingtonpost.com)

 

[hortysir]

Due to multiple allegations of voter suppression, the RNC has found itself defending intervenor lawsuits to enforce the decree. As the DNC does not face similar lawsuits, in the interest of equity the court changed the decree so only the DNC could seek to enforce it. The court also recognized that the requirement for the RNC to seek 20 day pre-clearance approval of any new “ballot security” tactics does not allow it to monitor new voter registrations in the few states that have adopted registration deadlines within 20 days of elections. The term was changed to a 10 day pre-clearance requirement. In response to the complaint that the decree’s prohibition on voter intimidation at the polls was too vague, the definition of this tactic was clarified. Finally, in the hope that the RNC might change its behavior toward minority voters in the future, the court added a contingent termination date to the decree of eight years. If the decree is violated again, the deadline will be extended.



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

The RNC chose not to litigate and settled the suit. The resulting decree restricted the RNC’s ability to engage in tactics which have a documented effect of suppressing the vote of qualified minorities. Four separate enforcement actions have been brought against the RNC for violations of the decree.


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


Why did they try to get this vacated?

Because they want to be free to disenfranchise black voters without getting caught so easily

Do you realize you keep repeating the opening post?

Can you cite any specific cases of republican voter suppression?

 

[WillowTree]

It is ongoing .

They are charged all the time with new crimes.

GOP Challenging Voter Registrations (washingtonpost.com)

how about shades of pink embarassment overlaid with black intimidation,, does that work for ya?