Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Voting Rights, Filibuster, Conservatives & MLK
- Thread starter Biff_Poindexter
- Start date
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
Some asshole's opinion is not fact.You do understand its a bitch move to play dumb like this right??Glorify the Confederates? Example?Then how come the main ones who glorify the Confederates -- you know, the side that was fighting to maintain slavery?? How come it's usually conservatives who do that??
Opinion: The GOP is now the party of neo-Confederates
The far left and far right have long been warning about neocons taking over the Republican Party. Turns out they are right. Only the “neocons” in question aren’t the neoconservati…www.mcall.com
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,078
- 27,751
- 2,180
name something.but it is definitely possible to try to place voting restrictions on people in the hopes that minority voters are the most adversely affected
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,078
- 27,751
- 2,180
the demofks must deter and deflect for this civil war mess they made. Shit, they actively blame republicans. it's truly amazing the alternate species of the demofks.Who is glorifying the failed Confederacy?Yes, which means it was over slavery....Both are correct. It was over the state’s rights to keep slavery legal.Democrats today have no problem stating that the Civil War was over slavery....only reactionary right wing cucks get triggered and say "no no no, it was over states rights!!!"
Which is why they wrote that reason into virtually every Confederate State's order of secession.....
So again......what is it with the Conservative fixation on glorifying the Confederacy??
It definitely can't be "heritage" -- unless they think something that was formed PRECISELY for maintaining slavery and only existed for 4 or 5 years represents the entirety of "southern heritage"
Boy bands have lasted longer than the Confederacy....so why the fixation?
I have ancestors who were conscripted into the Confederate Military. Is learning their history and the events they experience "glorifying" the Confederacy?
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,078
- 27,751
- 2,180
See, there it is the demofks who started the civil war were really republicans saying they were demofks I guess. Too fking funny. They have no shame.Some asshole's opinion is not fact.You do understand its a bitch move to play dumb like this right??Glorify the Confederates? Example?Then how come the main ones who glorify the Confederates -- you know, the side that was fighting to maintain slavery?? How come it's usually conservatives who do that??
Opinion: The GOP is now the party of neo-Confederates
The far left and far right have long been warning about neocons taking over the Republican Party. Turns out they are right. Only the “neocons” in question aren’t the neoconservati…
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,078
- 27,751
- 2,180
nope, Demofks created the confederation. PERIOD!!! you history deviate fk!You do understand its a bitch move to play dumb like this right??Glorify the Confederates? Example?Then how come the main ones who glorify the Confederates -- you know, the side that was fighting to maintain slavery?? How come it's usually conservatives who do that??
Opinion: The GOP is now the party of neo-Confederates
The far left and far right have long been warning about neocons taking over the Republican Party. Turns out they are right. Only the “neocons” in question aren’t the neoconservati…
That’s not the Confederate Flag. It was a flag used before the Civil War and the Confederacy, and after. But you’re a brainwashed dolt who doesn’t know what the actual Confederate flag looked like.More of the passive aggressive "Let's play dumb" shit...Who is glorifying the failed Confederacy?Yes, which means it was over slavery....Both are correct. It was over the state’s rights to keep slavery legal.Democrats today have no problem stating that the Civil War was over slavery....only reactionary right wing cucks get triggered and say "no no no, it was over states rights!!!"
Which is why they wrote that reason into virtually every Confederate State's order of secession.....
So again......what is it with the Conservative fixation on glorifying the Confederacy??
It definitely can't be "heritage" -- unless they think something that was formed PRECISELY for maintaining slavery and only existed for 4 or 5 years represents the entirety of "southern heritage"
Boy bands have lasted longer than the Confederacy....so why the fixation?
I have ancestors who were conscripted into the Confederate Military. Is learning their history and the events they experience "glorifying" the Confederacy?
View attachment 499171
.
Then it should be easy for you to provide the text in the law that discriminated against blacks.A law that restricts voting solely on the basis of race is already illegal....we won that fight already...30 comments and you’re still enable to show a law that restricts anyone’s right to vote based on race.30 comments in and still not a single point I made has been refuted...
However, voting restrictions meant to target minority voters with almost surgical precision became very rampant the second the Voting Rights Act was gutted....
"In its ruling, the appeals court said the law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. North Carolina legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision," the court said."
Supreme Court Declines Republican Bid To Revive North Carolina Voter ID Law
The restrictive law was thrown out last year after a court ruled it was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. State Republicans have tried several times to appeal.www.npr.org
Not my words...that was a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling......
hmmmm...I wonder why...and I wonder why its CONSISTENTLY been conservative policy makers pushing these bills....it's almost as if they were against the Voting Rights Act the whole time....
So far you’re haven’t proven shit.
Biff_Poindexter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #69
That’s not the Confederate Flag. It was a flag used before the Civil War and the Confederacy, and after. But you’re a brainwashed dolt who doesn’t know what the actual Confederate flag looked like.More of the passive aggressive "Let's play dumb" shit...Who is glorifying the failed Confederacy?Yes, which means it was over slavery....Both are correct. It was over the state’s rights to keep slavery legal.Democrats today have no problem stating that the Civil War was over slavery....only reactionary right wing cucks get triggered and say "no no no, it was over states rights!!!"
Which is why they wrote that reason into virtually every Confederate State's order of secession.....
So again......what is it with the Conservative fixation on glorifying the Confederacy??
It definitely can't be "heritage" -- unless they think something that was formed PRECISELY for maintaining slavery and only existed for 4 or 5 years represents the entirety of "southern heritage"
Boy bands have lasted longer than the Confederacy....so why the fixation?
I have ancestors who were conscripted into the Confederate Military. Is learning their history and the events they experience "glorifying" the Confederacy?
View attachment 499171
.
This is why I have zero respect for cowardly dishonest cucks like yourself....
Confederate flag from 1861 to 1863..
Confederate flag from 1865 to 1865....
Confederate flag from 1865 to being the preferred flag of Neo-Confederates and white supremacists today...
It isn't my fault that this flag is so popular with folks who claim to be "honoring" their Confederate heritage....
Maybe you should teach them about using the right flag when they are marching next to Neo-Nazis yelling "Jews will not replace us"
Biff_Poindexter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #70
Why did republicans need to see voting data by race for writing a "voting restrictions" bill??Then it should be easy for you to provide the text in the law that discriminated against blacks.A law that restricts voting solely on the basis of race is already illegal....we won that fight already...30 comments and you’re still enable to show a law that restricts anyone’s right to vote based on race.30 comments in and still not a single point I made has been refuted...
However, voting restrictions meant to target minority voters with almost surgical precision became very rampant the second the Voting Rights Act was gutted....
"In its ruling, the appeals court said the law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. North Carolina legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision," the court said."
Supreme Court Declines Republican Bid To Revive North Carolina Voter ID Law
The restrictive law was thrown out last year after a court ruled it was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. State Republicans have tried several times to appeal.
Not my words...that was a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling......
hmmmm...I wonder why...and I wonder why its CONSISTENTLY been conservative policy makers pushing these bills....it's almost as if they were against the Voting Rights Act the whole time....
So far you’re haven’t proven shit.
If race isn't a factor in these bills -- why would they need to write a bill based on racial voting data?
I'll wait while you deflecting like a bitch...
Yes a white rectangle flag with a square flag of the Army of Virginia is the Navy Ensign flag.That’s not the Confederate Flag. It was a flag used before the Civil War and the Confederacy, and after. But you’re a brainwashed dolt who doesn’t know what the actual Confederate flag looked like.More of the passive aggressive "Let's play dumb" shit...Who is glorifying the failed Confederacy?Yes, which means it was over slavery....Both are correct. It was over the state’s rights to keep slavery legal.Democrats today have no problem stating that the Civil War was over slavery....only reactionary right wing cucks get triggered and say "no no no, it was over states rights!!!"
Which is why they wrote that reason into virtually every Confederate State's order of secession.....
So again......what is it with the Conservative fixation on glorifying the Confederacy??
It definitely can't be "heritage" -- unless they think something that was formed PRECISELY for maintaining slavery and only existed for 4 or 5 years represents the entirety of "southern heritage"
Boy bands have lasted longer than the Confederacy....so why the fixation?
I have ancestors who were conscripted into the Confederate Military. Is learning their history and the events they experience "glorifying" the Confederacy?
View attachment 499171
.
This is why I have zero respect for cowardly dishonest cucks like yourself....
Confederate flag from 1861 to 1863..
View attachment 499183
Confederate flag from 1865 to 1865....
View attachment 499182
Confederate flag from 1865 to being the preferred flag of Neo-Confederates and white supremacists today...
View attachment 499184
It isn't my fault that this flag is so popular with folks who claim to be "honoring" their Confederate heritage....
Maybe you should teach them about using the right flag when they are marching next to Neo-Nazis yelling "Jews will not replace us"
The flag waived by Southerns often today is the Battle flag of the Army of Tennessee.
Like I said, a flag that existed before the civil war, and after. But it was never the official Confederate Flag itself.
I know these facts are inconvenient for your narrative, but they remain true.
You can huff and puff about “what they were thinking” all you want. As I said, provide the actual text that discriminates against blacks.Why did republicans need to see voting data by race for writing a "voting restrictions" bill??Then it should be easy for you to provide the text in the law that discriminated against blacks.A law that restricts voting solely on the basis of race is already illegal....we won that fight already...30 comments and you’re still enable to show a law that restricts anyone’s right to vote based on race.30 comments in and still not a single point I made has been refuted...
However, voting restrictions meant to target minority voters with almost surgical precision became very rampant the second the Voting Rights Act was gutted....
"In its ruling, the appeals court said the law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. North Carolina legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision," the court said."
Supreme Court Declines Republican Bid To Revive North Carolina Voter ID Law
The restrictive law was thrown out last year after a court ruled it was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. State Republicans have tried several times to appeal.
Not my words...that was a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling......
hmmmm...I wonder why...and I wonder why its CONSISTENTLY been conservative policy makers pushing these bills....it's almost as if they were against the Voting Rights Act the whole time....
So far you’re haven’t proven shit.
If race isn't a factor in these bills -- why would they need to write a bill based on racial voting data?
I'll wait while you deflecting like a bitch...
Put up or shut up. I’ll wait while you deflect like a bitch...
Biff_Poindexter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #73
No answer got it....You can huff and puff about “what they were thinking” all you want. As I said, provide the actual text that discriminates against blacks.Why did republicans need to see voting data by race for writing a "voting restrictions" bill??Then it should be easy for you to provide the text in the law that discriminated against blacks.A law that restricts voting solely on the basis of race is already illegal....we won that fight already...30 comments and you’re still enable to show a law that restricts anyone’s right to vote based on race.30 comments in and still not a single point I made has been refuted...
However, voting restrictions meant to target minority voters with almost surgical precision became very rampant the second the Voting Rights Act was gutted....
"In its ruling, the appeals court said the law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. North Carolina legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision," the court said."
Supreme Court Declines Republican Bid To Revive North Carolina Voter ID Law
The restrictive law was thrown out last year after a court ruled it was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. State Republicans have tried several times to appeal.
Not my words...that was a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling......
hmmmm...I wonder why...and I wonder why its CONSISTENTLY been conservative policy makers pushing these bills....it's almost as if they were against the Voting Rights Act the whole time....
So far you’re haven’t proven shit.
If race isn't a factor in these bills -- why would they need to write a bill based on racial voting data?
I'll wait while you deflecting like a bitch...
Put up or shut up. I’ll wait while you deflect like a bitch...
I have already told you that explicitly stating a voting restriction is based on race in whatever bill you are passing is illegal....
But that doesn't mean that voting restriction laws don't target minority voters...this has been proven......including the Supreme Court decision stating this reality.....the fact you keep ignoring it is of no consequence to me...it shows you are intellectually dishonest...like most Conservatives have to be
- Jan 22, 2020
- 12,549
- 11,396
- 2,140
1957? 1964?Cool....let's take a glance....They're obsession for bipartisanship does make them weak ... and republicans take advantage of that every time....The argument about filibuster is ludicrous. Democrats want to do away with it when they are in charge. Republicans want to do away with it when they are in charge. You almost gotta laugh that democrats won all the marbles but they still act like losers.
Republicans never gave a fuck about bipartisanship -- they just whine about it when they are out of power....and Democrats are dumb enough to allow it to work
A simple glance at the votes fo just about any bill will show how the demleftist vote in lockstep and republicans no so much. It will also prove that you’re an idiot.
How about the Senate Vote on the 1957 Voting Rights Act.....
View attachment 499163
How about the vote on the House Vote on the 1964...
View attachment 499164
If by lockstep you mean the majority of "progressives" voted for the bill and the majority of "conservatives" voted against it -- you would be correct...
Can you refute this??
Is there some "alternative" vote count you saw on a meme or something?
Idiot!
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
...for example????No answer got it....You can huff and puff about “what they were thinking” all you want. As I said, provide the actual text that discriminates against blacks.Why did republicans need to see voting data by race for writing a "voting restrictions" bill??Then it should be easy for you to provide the text in the law that discriminated against blacks.A law that restricts voting solely on the basis of race is already illegal....we won that fight already...30 comments and you’re still enable to show a law that restricts anyone’s right to vote based on race.30 comments in and still not a single point I made has been refuted...
However, voting restrictions meant to target minority voters with almost surgical precision became very rampant the second the Voting Rights Act was gutted....
"In its ruling, the appeals court said the law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. North Carolina legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision," the court said."
Supreme Court Declines Republican Bid To Revive North Carolina Voter ID Law
The restrictive law was thrown out last year after a court ruled it was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. State Republicans have tried several times to appeal.
Not my words...that was a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling......
hmmmm...I wonder why...and I wonder why its CONSISTENTLY been conservative policy makers pushing these bills....it's almost as if they were against the Voting Rights Act the whole time....
So far you’re haven’t proven shit.
If race isn't a factor in these bills -- why would they need to write a bill based on racial voting data?
I'll wait while you deflecting like a bitch...
Put up or shut up. I’ll wait while you deflect like a bitch...
I have already told you that explicitly stating a voting restriction is based on race in whatever bill you are passing is illegal....
But that doesn't mean that voting restriction laws don't target minority voters...this has been proven......including the Supreme Court decision stating this reality.....the fact you keep ignoring it is of no consequence to me...it shows you are intellectually dishonest...like most Conservatives have to be
Similar threads
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 219
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 45
- Views
- 525
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 63
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 6
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 50
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 137
- Replies
- 229
- Views
- 3K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 7995
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 465
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-