how does any of this crap prove that the decades long court intervention into republican tacitics to keep legal American voters from voting is not real?
Idiot ****
It debunks each and every one of your assertions you make about the incident from the 1980s
Kill yourself.. you're wasting oxygen
No it fucking doesnt you whore boy
Quote: Originally Posted by Truthmatters View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Immanuel View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Truthmatters View Post
You can not and refuse to even try to document your claims that the dems do it too because no such evindence exsist.
I gave you all court documented cold hard facts to proove the republican party wants to keep black people from voting to win elections (out of their own mouths).
You have repetedly called me a liar for doing so.
Now when the burden of proof lies in your lap you just spew bullshit?
I called you a liar because you are a liar.
Your "evidence" has been properly defeated, yet you continue to claim that unproven allegations are fact.What unproven allegations? immy as a citizen I am perfectly within mhy rights to acess the evidence in this cazse and determine they are guilty of breaking the law. You see that is completetly separate from me making the mistake where I thought (from the definition I read adn posted) that they had to admitt guilt in the case. I was wrong and was proven wrong by the court document. As soon as I saw this I admitted my mistake. That being done I can still view them as guitly of these crime by weight of the evidence. Not just once or twice but dozens of times after admitting to your mistake even. That is why you have proven yourself a liar. That and the fact that you have attempted to change my words.Then tell me what you meant when you asked if I thought the dems didnt do these things? Tell me how you get from a court document that the dems were encouraged to fiule false suits?
I suspect that if you wanted to you could find dozens more accusations against the RNC. I also suspect that the RNC would be guilty of many of those accusations. The problem is until they are found guilty by a court, they are considered innocent. They are scummy, but so is the DNC.The court determined they broke a consent decree , that is a finding of guilt. Now the dems have done scummy things Im sure but the court record prooves the Rs have systematically worked to disenfranchise perfectly legal voters, go get your proof the dems are as bad.
And I suspect that if I wanted to take the time to prove to a moron that the DNC was not saintly, that I could do so. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING THAT MUCH TIME TO DO SO BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD PROOF MEANS. However, my problem would be the same as yours. I would have to rely on telling lies to state that they are guilty of crimes, because there has been no court findings that I know of.
I can suspect that the RNC is guilty of the allegations involved in this discussion. I'd even be willing to bet that they are. What I am not willing to do is convict them based on allegations that have not been proven in a court of law. When you get a court to find guilt then I'll be happy to see those convicted resting behind bars. Not until.
You have refused to answer my question and it was a simple question.
Do you know what Innocent Until Proven Guilty means? Now, since you have ignored it for so long, I'm going to make it even more difficult for you. Explain what it means.I already did a couplke of times, its a term for the courts and not for the layman, It is not a lie for me to say I think the poponderance of the evidence prooves the RNC guilty.
BTW the court alos desided that they were guilty of breaking the consent decree and I showed that in the c.ourt records
The burden of proof only lies in my lap if I care to prove it. I don't. It is not a relevant fact in this discussion.
It is not relevant to you that you claim the DNC has done the same as the republicans and refuse to do the homework to try and proove your claim?
Posts like these are almost impossible to answer well, so I will do my best to pull out the bullshit and give you an answer.
Quote:
What unproven allegations?
None of the allegations presented in the Consent Decree were ever proven. Let me remind you:
Quote:
making the mistake where I thought (from the definition I read adn posted) that they had to admitt guilt in the case. I was wrong and was proven wrong by the court document
There was no admission of guilt NOR finding of guilt!
Quote:
Then tell me what you meant when you asked if I thought the dems didnt do these things?
It seemed like my question was pretty simple to me. I'm not sure where you are having a problem with it.
Let me try again: Do you think that Democrats do not attempt to influence elections in ways that decent people would think are unscrupulous? By such methods I mean (not an all inclusive list by any means) things like filing fraudulent voters registration cards to bog down the system, dead men voting, intimidation at polling places etc. etc. etc.
Quote:
The court determined they broke a consent decree
That is another lie. The court stated that they would not modify the decree in favor of the Republicans because of the intervenor lawsuits that had been filed. The court did not find that the decree had been broken rather since the democrats had been out fishing for willing cohorts to file frivolous lawsuits i.e. Malone in the link you provided earlier that they decided to continue to enforce the decree in a one-sided manner. That would be surprising to me if it was not the District Court of New Jersey or had it been California's court.
Quote:
Now the dems have done scummy things Im sure
Maybe there is hope for you yet.
Quote:
but the court record prooves the Rs have systematically worked to disenfranchise perfectly legal voters
Wrong again. The court record doesn't even try to prove such.
Quote:
go get your proof the dems are as bad.
I don't think I said "as" bad although I believe they are.
You even admitted that the dems were scummy too.
Quote:
Now the dems have done scummy things Im sure
Are you calling yourself a liar now?
In re "innocent until proven guilty":
Quote:
I already did a couplke of times, its a term for the courts and not for the layman, It is not a lie for me to say I think the poponderance of the evidence prooves the RNC guilty.
That is not an answer and no it is not a term for the courts. It is a term we as Americans are told we live by. Jurors are told when they go into a trial that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty" and in legal matters it is not a preponderance of the evidence it is BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.
I'll ask it again, Do you know what Innocent until proven guilty means?
Do you realize that your above answer shows you are unamerican.
Quote:
BTW the court alos desided that they were guilty of breaking the consent decree and I showed that in the c.ourt records
No, the courts ruled that because of intervenor lawsuits they would not release the RNC from the decree. It does not say that they broke the decree.
Quote:
It is not relevant to you that you claim the DNC has done the same as the republicans and refuse to do the homework to try and proove your claim?
Proving the claim is not important to me. Spending hours upon hours trying to convince you that you sound like a moron is... well, quite simply not necessary. You have done a damned good job of it throughout this entire thread.
Immie
