Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sangha, Yurt's argumentation (reflective of several reactionaries and a few leftists here) depends on the force of immoral stubbornness. He can't provide an argument for burden of proof, so he keeps asking a question, demanding others refute his "evidence". He never has posted evidence other than he says he disagrees with SCOTUS, so who cares? Point out his failure enough times, he will start crying and saying others are ad homing him, then he will start neg repping. He has done this before simply because he is incapable of arguing. This is nothing new for Yurt.
I agree. I have asked Yurt for evidence that any part of the legislative process has a legal garauntee of privacy.
So far, I've gotten zippo from Yurt.
It's typical of conservatives. They have no principles and no moral center. The only concept they consistently adhere to is short-term self-interest, which is why they will say anything to avoid admitting they are wrong.
That's why no one is arguing that "only the signatures are part of the legislative process"
Once again, you have shown no evidence that the legislative process is private
They can't make that public because elections are private.
Then, asode from the vote, which parts of the legislative process are public, and more importantly, what factual evidence do you have to support your claims?
So far, you haven't been posting any facts to support your argument.
post 126...show me where the votes at the ballot box for the referendum are public...i am not aware the vote is public....
if the vote is public, it makes no sense to make the signatures private
Again, the electoral process is private. If the govt released the names of people who voted for a referendum, they would be releasing private info about who participated in the electoral process which, in the hopes it may someday sink in, IS PRIVATE!!!!
(c)
The States interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process suffices to defeat the argument that the PRA is unconstitu-tional with respect to referendum petitions in general
Then this answers your question, Yurt. I just wanted you to put it out there clearly. Your evidence supports the opposite of what you believe. And no where does SCOTUS suggest that the actual voting should be public. Only you do, and you do not count.
Yurt made an indefensible false comparison between petitions and actual voting, couldn't support it, got called out, started whining, neg repped those who laughed at him, kept whining, and wonders why everybody continually kicks his metaphorical tail end here on the board.
Yurt, you made a claim you can't support.
Big Fitz continually shows his ignorant bias. Washington and Hancock were wealthy while most of the patriots were small bourgeois. Many of the Loyalists were politicians, landowners, some quite well off, and generally the far conservative establishment. The Loyalists supported Big Business like the East India Company and the tea monopoly, while the patriots opposed it. None of the Founders (possible exception of Hamilton) would have tolerated the influence of corporatists on government. Madison considered the influence of wealth on government the single greatest danger to the Republic. He was right. Big Meow does not know that is espousing the argument of Beard, the leftist. How funny.
I watch to see what stupid thing Big Meow will do next, and then I don't do that thing.
Jake does not have to make any argument until Yurt posts evidence for his premise. Yurt has whined, got his face smeared in his own argument, and cries like a baby. Yurt, once again, post evidence, man. The only link you gave was to SCOTUS, which does not support your premise. You have to support your premise with something. You have not done that. Fail.
