Eric Holder tells NAACP that whites want to take away their voting rights. (illegals, Hispanic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well who in the hell did you think he was talking about? Little green men from Mars? If the object of his imaginary attacks are minorities and Its an MLK day speech I am sure he is not talking about the Aztecs enacting voter ID laws to suppress the Black and minority vote. Reading comprehension 101. So much for you challenge.
I suppose you know, don't you, that there are always efforts to disenfranchise voters, sometimes blacks and sometimes hispanics or orientals or native americans or white Democrats (see: Texas redistricting).
You may conclude, probably rightfully, that since whites make up the majority of people in the United States that whites are seeking to restrict the voting powers of minorities, but that seems a rather far stretch at "proving" the statement made in the thread title, wouldn't you say?
1. He is absolutely correct that the recent upsurge of voter ID laws has been motivated to make it more difficult for minorities, who tend to support Democrats, to vote.
According to the rebuttal to Holder's block of the ID law, from the State of South Carolina (SC), when combining DMV data and the state voter rolls, 10% of blacks of voting age do not have a photo ID issued by the state. Conversely 8.4% of whites do not have a photo ID. That's a 1.6% difference.
In addition, SC has made available to all it's citizens free photo IDs and free conveyance to the DMV to acquire those photo ID's.
We have a National ID; it's called a Social Security number. Try and get a loan without it.
Well, then problem solved. Why create another ID? Or, is it suddenly a hobby to throw money on more plastic and/or paper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
No, I don't have reservations about it. Just don't think having an ID is that big of deal to get, national or state.
Well, plenty of people do. There's plenty of evidence here on C-D.
Quote:
Again, the voter fraud was proven because dead people voted in our election. The reason they did this has not proven nor the people who did this. Additionally, the state is trying to figure out how to keep this from happening with the current laws in place. So, you could say that while voter fraud did happen, the cause or perpetuators have not been identified, thus the investigation.
Investigations are good. That is how we get to learn about people like Mark Jacoby where investigations actually lead to something... or Diebold machine issues from years ago. But don't present them as proof.
BTW, you failed to understand your own link. There is nothing certain about the quest for investigation.
Quote:
However, having dead people vote in an election is voter fraud no matter which way you slice it.
Unless the problem is with state's record keeping, which is a part of the investigation. See, why that idea of yours ain't proof? But it sure comes at an opportune time.
Well, then problem solved. Why create another ID? Or, is it suddenly a hobby to throw money on more plastic and/or paper?
The problem isn't solved unless/until we make people present their social security cards to vote. Beyond that, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters with the same first and last names would still be able to abuse the system. You need a photo ID to rent a DVD; no one without a vested interest in voter fraud would object to requiring the same ID in order to vote.
As to government wasting money...don't even get me started.
53 posts in just over one hour since I posted the text of Holder's speech and, so far, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS DARED TO ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE!
Who gives a damn about the truth, right? It's much more satisfying to be mad about something about Obama and/or Eric Holder, even when it's grounded totally upon an untruth...ie: a lie.
Astonishing...really astonishing.
The best response to you questioning the validity of the thread by asking for a quote from Holder. Pure genius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Why would those people use quotation marks when writing about what Holder said unless they were quoting? ?
Ahem, shouldn’t that be the first step, immediately following the ability to demonstrate such fraud which necessitates the “requirement” for citizens to be “licensed” to exercise their right? Shouldn’t the first step be of accountability that it doesn’t leave ONE person disenfranchised due to bureaucratic inefficiencies?
No.
Quote:
I see you probably rely more on what others tell you, then what you can find for self. How typical of a right winger to think nothing beyond “Acorn”.
Acorn.
Quote:
The right wing hypocrisy, that's all. See below.
Incoherent.
Quote:
And please do tell why you wouldn't want to carry a proof of your citizenship but want others to have a license to vote.
I do carry proof of my citizenship. It is called a driver's license. It also has the magical power to prove who I am at a polling place.
No one said you need a license to vote. Some commie university professor must have really ruffled your feathers with a dissertation on Jim Crow and how blacks were treated pre-1963. Stuck in a time warp of some kind, "bittlerly clinging" to a bygone era, and claiming that evil whites still want to prevent them from voting when a law is proposed to show an ID.
This horsecrap may have worked for sanctimonious democrat charlatans in the past, but people are wising up to it. Lay off the dope, tone down the froth and phony outrage, and get a grip on reality. No one wants to prevent blacks and "the poor" from voting. Asking someone to get an ID from the local DMV does not constitute an undue burden, a poll tax, an IQ test, or any other "barrier to voting". It is a complete and utter farce. A laughing stock. You are a clown for advocating the notion.
The problem isn't solved unless/until we make people present their social security cards to vote. Beyond that, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters with the same first and last names would still be able to abuse the system. You need a photo ID to rent a DVD; no one without a vested interest in voter fraud would object to requiring the same ID in order to vote.
As to government wasting money...don't even get me started.
Well, if SSN is an ID, then why bother with another? And if you've become insensitive to government spending, I take it that you wouldn't be discovered complaining about it.
Well, then problem solved. Why create another ID? Or, is it suddenly a hobby to throw money on more plastic and/or paper?
Maybe we could just print ballots in English and use that money (saved from the extra ink and/or processing for computer ballots) for voter ID purposes. Or would requiring American citizens to read English ballots block one's ability to vote ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
