Republicans repetedly keep blacks from voting

[Yurt]

you are the biggest troll race baiter on the interwebs...you are pathetic

 

[SFC Ollie]

The problem here is that every halfway intelligent person can and has admitted that their own party has done some questionable things to get votes or influence elections. Most will say that their own party has participated in some form of voter fraud.

That is all or most except for truthmatters. Because to her Democrat shit smells like roses and Obama issues orders to God.

So unlike the liar Truth matters, I am done with this thread. simply isn't worth my time to argue with a brick wall, or at least someone as dumb as one.

Anyone else notice she even screwed up the spelling in the title?

repetedly? Really?

Enjoy the dumbness, I'm outta here.

 

[DiveCon]

Tell us how this is taken out of context/

YOU take it out of context

 

[The T]

The problem here is that every halfway intelligent person can and has admitted that their own party has done some questionable things to get votes or influence elections. Most will say that their own party has participated in some form of voter fraud.

That is all or most except for truthmatters. Because to her Democrat shit smells like roses and Obama issues orders to God.

So unlike the liar Truth matters, I am done with this thread. simply isn't worth my time to argue with a brick wall, or at least someone as dumb as one.

Anyone else notice she even screwed up the spelling in the title?

repetedly? Really?

Enjoy the dumbness, I'm outta here.

Correct Sarge. Ralph Wiggum still bears the burden of proof of the word 'repeatedly'.

All I see is a repeatedly huge argument for the most Partisan and Dumbass Poster on these boards. Too bad I voted for sangha. Ralph Wiggum came in a very close cointoss as second.

 

[The T]

Tell us how this is taken out of context/

YOU take it out of context

Yep.

 

[txlonghorn]

Holy shit...this is STILL happening??

In case you haven't figured it out yet fellas, you are NOT going to get her to stop and admit anything. So why not move onto a valid discussion that hasn't been BEATEN LIKE A DEAD HORSE for the past 48 hours?

 

[Kat]

Words from inside the republican party itself are not enough for the cons to accept who their party is.

Who said the R party is the con party? I already told you I am NOT a R but AM a conservative.
Your brain can't seem to wrap around anything but your attention seeking. I am not fooled for one sec. People like you are a dime a dozen. Will do or say anything on the Internet to get that attention they obviously lack in real life.
I am sorry for you, and especially the hatred you have.

 

[Kat]

Holy shit...this is STILL happening??

In case you haven't figured it out yet fellas, you are NOT going to get her to stop and admit anything. So why not move onto a valid discussion that hasn't been BEATEN LIKE A DEAD HORSE for the past 48 hours?

LOL So true TLH. But attention seekers tend to do that don't they? Doesn't matter as long as they get the attention.

 

[Truthmatters]

So you actually think the republican party is not the conservative party?

 

[DiveCon]

So you actually think the republican party is not the conservative party?

when they had the WH, house/senate and spent like drunken sailors(not intended to be an insult to drunken sailors) how can you even begin to call them consevative?

 

[Kat]

So you actually think the republican party is not the conservative party?

You got it. True conservatives have no real party. You think McCain is a conservative?
I suppose I would say the Republican party is the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[Kat]

So you actually think the republican party is not the conservative party?

when they had the WH, house/senate and spent like drunken sailors(not intended to be an insult to drunken sailors) how can you even begin to call them consevative?

True, but compared to what we have now.....

 

[DiveCon]

So you actually think the republican party is not the conservative party?

when they had the WH, house/senate and spent like drunken sailors(not intended to be an insult to drunken sailors) how can you even begin to call them consevative?

True, but compared to what we have now.....

true, they were PIKERS by comparison

 

[Immanuel]

rnc in violation of consent decree


Look on the bottom of page four.

The court determined the RNC violated the consent decree.

Hmm,

Funny, I'm not going back to look for it, but I do remember from one of your own links, that the Malone case was dismissed. Also, from what I am reading in your link, the court found that the list compiled from the letters could not be used to remove voters from the rolls. I have no problem with that ruling.

Also you are still lying as the Malone case was an intervenor lawsuit and does not apply to the discussion we were having. You continue to make the claim that the Consent Decree found guilt which is a frigging lie that you will probably continue to post until the day that you die, because you are a damned liar.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

What is a Consent Decree?

Looks like breaking the law to me.

In order for an agreement between two parties to be considered binding and legal, it must also be recognized by the court. A consent decree in this case is judicial recognition of the agreement. The consent decree obtained often bars one side of the case from certain actions.

One often sees the consent decree applied in cases where a company is sued by government organizations like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For example, the EPA might want a company to clean up a site that contains hazardous materials, and may be having difficulty obtaining cooperation from the company, called potentially responsible parties (PRPs), without a suit.

Instead of having a long and expensive court case in order to gain compliance, the EPA may ask the PRPs to agree to a consent decree to clean up their site, using their own money. If the PRPs wish to avoid litigation, they will accept a consent decree from a judge and will then be responsible for clean up as defined by the decree

It is not a law. It has no bearing on anyone outside of the agreement. They do this to avoid long drawn out court cases that will cost both side a hell of a lot of money.

A consent decree is an agreement between two parties where one or both parties agree to certain actions or not to perform certain actions. It must be recognized by the court.

Once again, it is not law. It is an agreement, almost like a contract between two parties to SETTLE a disagreement. It has no bearing on anyone outside of the two parties involved and is NOT law.

10:1 you will continue to lie about that as well.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

consent decree: Definition from Answers.com




"Once entered, a consent decree is binding on the consenting parties"

Looks more like a contract to me. A contract is enforceable by law. It is not Law.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

consent decree: Definition from Answers.com




"Once entered, a consent decree is binding on the consenting parties"

but it still isnt LAW
since it binds ONLY those involved in the decree

Is planning to keep legal voters from voting to win an election illegal?

No, it is not. It sounds like conspiracy to commit a crime to me, but that is not what we have been talking about here. You are deflecting as usual.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down' - Los Angeles Times



"In an Aug. 13 memo the court made public Friday, Kris Wolfe, the Republican National Committee Midwest political director, wrote Lanny Griffith, the committee's Southern political director, and said of the Louisiana campaigning:

"I know this race is really important to you. I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls. . . . If it's a close race . . . which I'm assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably."
"

Discussed and condemned... next point?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

but it still isnt LAW
since it binds ONLY those involved in the decree

Is planning to keep legal voters from voting to win an election illegal?

is making sure all those that are registered to vote are actually registered where they live(AKA the correct address) illegal?

NO

However, it is not the responsibility of the Republican Party.

Immie

 

[Yurt]

Is planning to keep legal voters from voting to win an election illegal?

is making sure all those that are registered to vote are actually registered where they live(AKA the correct address) illegal?

NO

However, it is not the responsibility of the Republican Party.

Immie

iirc....wasn't the issue that the repubs did not violate the law, rather, they only violated the consent decree because some of the areas they were reviewing or checking on were majority minority areas and as such, they have to give certain notice etc....to the dems