something that bothers me about the left (one of their ideas)

[Truthmatters]

Let's see if you can follow this then, 'genius'. You stated teh Republican party engages in tactis to keep black people from voting. Something pretty much anyone would define as a racist tactic. So yes, you did call the Repuiblican party racist. Grow some balls and say what you mean.

I stated a fact a PROVEN fact adn gave you ample documation of that fact.

I did not say Why they kept black people from voting did I.

You will have to ask them why they did it.

If I state the fact that you are claiming I said something I did not say its the same.

I did not call anyone a racist.

Do you see the pattern here?

The thread starts with you claiming dems call people racists.

I reply and call no one a racist yet you claim I did.

Maybe just maybe you are imagining things huh?

 

[Alpha1]

Examples of proven or alleged political caging
From the Washington Post: "In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent letters to predominantly black neighborhoods in New Jersey, and when 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls. The RNC sent off-duty law enforcement officials to the polls and hung posters in heavily black neighborhoods warning that violating election laws is a crime."



The Washington Post[11]: "In 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, most of them black, removed from the rolls in Louisiana when a party mailer was returned. The consent decrees that resulted prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that target minorities or conduct mail campaigns to 'compile voter challenge lists.'" The Republican National Committee reportedly stopped the practice following the consent decree in the 1986 case, but allegations of RNC-conducted voter caging arose once again in the 2004 elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list

Lets see, thats 27 years ago...what would you have done 27 years ago to find out if voters actually lived in the district, or if the voter even existed? And what do you find wrong about warning voters that violating election laws is a crime?

So...engaging in anti-fraud initiatives is the wrong thing to do? Don't Dims engage in anti-fraud initiatives?
Don't Dims continually accuse the Cons. of stealing elections and election fraud?
Hows that done without engaging in some sort of investigation (initiative)?
Anti-Dim is now anti-black? Hows that work?


Wednesday, October 11, 2006
McCaskill's ACORN Friends Submit 1,492 Bogus Voter Cards

Update: Surprisingly, the AP is following the story tonight.
At least 16 local democrats have been sentenced for election violations since 2004.

 

[Truthmatters]

BTW alpie Rove and his man Griffen were tied to the scandal.

 

[Truthmatters]

Lets see, thats 27 years ago...what would you have done 27 years ago to find out if voters actually lived in the district, or if the voter even existed? And what do you find wrong about warning voters that violating election laws is a crime?

Do you really think people did ot know where the black niehgborhoods were back then?

 

[Truthmatters]

THEY WERE CAUGHT!

They were forced to sign desent decrees not to ever engauge in the behavior again.

It is not anything but a plan designed to take legal voters from the voting rolls and that is the way the laws see it.

This case that sites it is a case being brought because they did it again.

 

[Alpha1]

Lets see, thats 27 years ago...what would you have done 27 years ago to find out if voters actually lived in the district, or if the voter even existed? And what do you find wrong about warning voters that violating election laws is a crime?

Do you really think people did ot know where the black niehgborhoods were back then?

So address some of my points...you think its wrong for one party to expose voter fraud but not the 'other' party....blacks happen to be 95% Dims...so what? they are immune from investigating...?

What about ACORN ? 16 Dims indicted...1492 bogus registrations ? dead people and teens....

 

[mattskramer]

This thread stated out with a list of gross generalizations. I try to avoid debating generalities. There are a few bad people within every group. Democrats have a history of corrupt people and activity committed by such people. Republicans also have a history of corrupt people and activity committed by such people. Neither party significantly stands out.

 

[Alpha1]

This thread stated out with a list of gross generalizations. I try to avoid debating generalities. There are a few bad people within every group. Democrats have a history of corrupt people and activity committed by such people. Republicans also have a history of corrupt people and activity committed by such people. Neither party significantly stands out.

You wouldn't get that from the desh....she thinks its only the right that do naughty things....I happen to believe its perfectly reasonable to root out fraud at the polls...

 

[Semper Fi]

Truthmatters,
Why the hell did you come into this thread with your spouting about Republican "poll caging" or whatever? Wouldn't that best be served in another thread? This is the original post:

You cannot disagree with them, without being, a biggot, a racist, a homophobe, anti-woman, anti-something, because to the liberal ideal, conservatism, and conservatives are just stupid.

Now, I dont think liberalism, will admit its inherent intolerance, and ex-clusion of anyone who doesnt agree lockstep with its party platform and ideas, but it should.

You shouldnt have to agree with someone in order not to be racist, a homephobe, anti-woman etc.

Do you agree or disagree with my criticism of the left.

Then and only then, please give me your criticism of the right.

So tell me, Truthmatters, why you hijacked this thread with all your information that belongs elsewhere? Or how whatever you posted relates to the ORIGINAL POST of this thread?

 

[Diuretic]

Caging isn't about racism, it's about stopping voters who may vote for the other mob. Nothing racist about that. Corrupt yes, racist no.

 

[jillian]

Instead you chose 22 words arranged in way to mean the same effect.

And if those words are true there shouldn't be any problem.

 

[maineman]

You cannot disagree with them, without being, a biggot, a racist, a homophobe, anti-woman, anti-something, because to the liberal ideal, conservatism, and conservatives are just stupid.

Now, I dont think liberalism, will admit its inherent intolerance, and ex-clusion of anyone who doesnt agree lockstep with its party platform and ideas, but it should.

You shouldnt have to agree with someone in order not to be racist, a homephobe, anti-woman etc.

Do you agree or disagree with my criticism of the left.

Then and only then, please give me your criticism of the right.

If, when someone disagrees with me about equal rights, and in their arguments, they display bigotry, I call them a bigot. If they display racist attitudes, I call them a racist, and so on. I do not immediately consider everyone that disagrees with me to be a bigot or a racist or a homophobe or a misogynist.... only those people who, in the process of disagreement, actually exhibit the traits and attitudes that would earn them such a distinction.

How many times have I been called a baby killer and a traitor? Many times. But I do not think that every conservative here or anywhere else considers me as such... I think such broad generalizations as you make here, martin, are inaccurate.

 

[Semper Fi]

And if those words are true there shouldn't be any problem.

The keyword there is IF. The words are not true, so there is a problem.

 

[Edward]

I, too, agree. What else bothers me is how much hypocrisy there is on the left.

And Truthmatters--I have seen what actsnoblemartin is talking about first-hand. In school last year, I said, "I disagree with affirmative action," and was called a "racist," by a girl who identifies with the left wing. She has no credibility that I can give her now, seeing as how I agree with complete 100% racial equality somehow makes me a "racist."

It is you who lacks credibility and I agree with her on this count as well. You can attack this poor girl like the bastard that you are but that won't change the fact that what you just said was "in order to make my racism appear to be noble I will refer to my racism as a desire for 100% racial equality." The only problem with that is that anyone who isn't racist knows this is impossible and the only people who would say something like this are racists trying to justify their racism. At some point the government must step in and attempt to level the playing field and affirmative action does that. The # 1 complaint against affirmative action is that it is reverse discrimination. That's really interesting when you think about it. It's not racism when blacks are denied a job because of their race but it is racism when whites are denied a job because of affirmative action. There must be something to the claim. I got it. It is that affirmative action isn't perfect and 100% racial equality cannot exist so if one person benefits from affirmative action someone else must not benefit. The question is who is better off without affirmative action and that is that white men are better off without it while women, those of color and the disabled are worst off without it. When you put affirmative action into the picture you see that whites are discriminated against to a degree but that degree doesn't have as much of an affect as it would have on minorities, women and the disabled if it did not exist. You lack any credibility so why do you pretend that you are so good and that this girl was so horrible when a lot of people who heard what you said would agree with her that you are a racist who lacks credibility. Wait. I got it. It is all about you, your opinion and your vote.

I find it interesting whenever someone points out that you might be racist that you resort to calling them names and attacking their crebility. God bless the land of the free, and the home of the brave where racist pigs can insult innocent girls and use the moniker of Semper Fi on a message board while violating the rights of others on election day. Wait, I just lost all credibility with you. I am crying, because I want your adoration and I want you to think I am credible. Please, what must I say in praise of you to get your adoration and to make you think I am credible or better yet what can I say about your egocentric ass that would get you to vote for me if I were to run for Senator of Retardom.

 

[Edward]

Pretty hefty generalization, eh liberal?

It was you who was making a generalization and attacking the girl as not having ay credibilty because she had the courage to say something negative about you. Shame on her. Doesn't she know it is all about you? Doesn't she know how awesome you are and how right you are? Why isn't she talking out of her ass so you can think of her as credible? Based on what you have said I am inclined to believe her and to consider her credible because you appear to be racist based on your comments and if that upsets you then so be it because I don't want your damn vote and won' talk out of my ass so you can feel all fuzzy inside about how awesome and right your retarded ass is when you cast your vote for a retard like you. I am also more than happy to defend her honor and to point out that you and those you vote for lack are retards (if you really want to vote for the best man for the job why don't you vote for he who is always right the Great Semper Fi, and tell that girl that she is wrong because the great Semper Fi can't be a racist. No, oh no. He is awesome, great, and that is why everyone he votes for gets his vote. All they have to do is tell the egocentric bastard he is right and agree with him. This poor girl would have been credible had she said: YOU AREN'T A RACIST AND YOU ARE RIGHT. GOOD YOU, GOOD YOU, I AM GLAD YOU CONSIDER ME CREDIBLE WHEN I AGREE WITH YOU AND UNCREDIBLE WHEN I POINT OUT YOUR FLAWS.

 

[Edward]

If, when someone disagrees with me about equal rights, and in their arguments, they display bigotry, I call them a bigot. If they display racist attitudes, I call them a racist, and so on. I do not immediately consider everyone that disagrees with me to be a bigot or a racist or a homophobe or a misogynist.... only those people who, in the process of disagreement, actually exhibit the traits and attitudes that would earn them such a distinction.

How many times have I been called a baby killer and a traitor? Many times. But I do not think that every conservative here or anywhere else considers me as such... I think such broad generalizations as you make here, martin, are inaccurate.

I wouldn't have called Semper Fi a racist before what he said in this thread about wanting 100% equality of the races. Why? Because I have found that those who say this are racists because those who aren't racist understand that this is an impossiblity and wouldn't even attempt to want this. To have such equality is impossible so it is our responsibility to do our best in making sure this is possible. For example, without affirmative action blacks will be discriminated against and with it white men would be discriminated against but the question we need to ask ourselves is how much discrimination of a group we are willing to tolerate. Here, white men being discriminated against to a degree as a result of affirmative action doesn't impose the same level of hardship as it would on minorities, women and the disabled if we didn't have affirmative action. That he would attack this girls credibility because she was willing to point out his flaw and to do so in the most frequent method used by racists indicates to me that she is correct in her assessment of Semper Fi.

 

[Alpha1]

Quite a rant...

HAHAHA,, ,You must have #1 in your class on convoluted reasoning, double-speak and illogical logic....

not even worth trying to debate that kind of phyco-babble...

 

[Semper Fi]

Quite a rant...

HAHAHA,, ,You must have #1 in your class on convoluted reasoning, double-speak and illogical logic....

not even worth trying to debate that kind of phyco-babble...

Agreed.

 

[jillian]

The keyword there is IF. The words are not true, so there is a problem.

Fact... the Republican party has systematically set out to exclude black voters in battleground states.

I do think that could create a perception of racism. I also think it isn't so much racism as it is politics... try to get as many of the people who vote for you out to vote and try to keep the folk who don't vote for you away from the polls.

I'm sure you can see where that might be construed as racism. On the other hand, I suspect that Democrats don't send out cars to take a lot of evangelicals to the polls... yet they would for the AARP set.

 

[Semper Fi]

I also think it isn't so much racism as it is politics...

Read that part carefully, and follow the trail back to what made you quote me in the first place.