Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on February 10, 2014, 10:35:25 AM
-
Rand Paul: Texas Could Go Blue If GOP Doesn't Change
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Saturday warned Republican lawmakers that they need to adapt to changing public opinion.
"What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don't change," he said at a Harris County, Tex. GOP dinner, according to Politico. "That means we evolve, it doesn't mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party."
Paul spoke about immigration reform and explained his approach to policy for the "touchy" issue.
"We won't all agree on it," he said. "But I'll tell you, what I will say and what I'll continue to say, and it's not an exact policy prescription … but if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we'll find a place for you."
-snip-
Full article here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-immigration-gop-change
-
He's right. TX Hispanic population growth is very high. And more hispanics vote dem in every election. Repub share keeps getting smaller. It's difficult to look at these 2 factors and boldly claim TX will be repub forever.
-
It won't forever but there are a lot of Hispanic repubs running here as well.
-
Every hispanic I know is conservative, you have to realize that most hispanics especially first and second generation are catholics.
You know part of that group libtards like to make fun of?
-
Every hispanic I know is conservative, you have to realize that most hispanics especially first and second generation are catholics.
You know part of that group libtards like to make fun of?
Yeah, many Hispanics have a host of values that would seem to make them natural Republican voters...which is why Republicans are stepping on their dicks by backing various "anti-brown" policies which only serve to alienate Hispanics and cause them to vote Dem.
-
Yeah, many Hispanics have a host of values that would seem to make them natural Republican voters...which is why Republicans are stepping on their dicks by backing various "anti-brown" policies which only serve to alienate Hispanics and cause them to vote Dem.
What anti brown policies are you talking about?
Or is this another you don't want abortions so your anti women bull shit?
Being against illegal immigration doesn't make you anti brown moron...
-
Maybe the immigration laws should be enforced by securing the borders to keep out the invaders, not recognizing the children of these criminals as "dreamers" or "citizens", and deport as many as you can.
That will preserve Texas in the GOP column until "global warming" kills the human race.
Legalize in about 20 years some of the invaders, kick out the rest and secure the border. Solution to the ILLEGAL immigration problem that should never had existed if the law would have been enforced by the corrupt federal government.
At least Rand believes in securing the BORDER FIRST. Something not posted by the op. From the article:
“Doesn’t mean I don’t believe in securing the border first, doesn’t mean I don’t believe it’s important we have a secure country,” he said. “But it does mean we have to have a different attitude.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/rand-paul-texas-could-turn-blue-103292.html#ixzz2t1Fz7YhK
-
What anti brown policies are you talking about?
Or is this another you don't want abortions so your anti women bull shit?
Being against illegal immigration doesn't make you anti brown moron...
Any policy (and the real life execution thereof) that disproportionately penalizes racial minorities. The Arizona ID law, NY's "Stop and frisk" and the new Voter ID laws in a few states come to mind.
You need only listen to the rhetoric used by some prominent republicans when speaking about issues like immigration to get the idea that the GOP is no place for racial minorities.
And, c'mon, if there really was no issue, then what the hell is Rand Paul talking about? Change from what?
BTW, although Texas hispanics vote republican more than hispanics nationally, that number is still only 27%, so denying that many in the GOP have racial issues (or dodging the question of how serious and prevalent racism is in the GOP vs on the Democrat side) ain't gonna buy you much credibility with the 73% who aren't voting for the GOP.
-
You need only listen to the rhetoric used by some prominent republicans when speaking about issues like immigration to get the idea that the GOP is no place for racial minorities.
What specific rhetoric and which prominent Republicans?
-
Any policy (and the real life execution thereof) that disproportionately penalizes racial minorities. The Arizona ID law, NY's "Stop and frisk" and the new Voter ID laws in a few states come to mind.
You need only listen to the rhetoric used by some prominent republicans when speaking about issues like immigration to get the idea that the GOP is no place for racial minorities.
And, c'mon, if there really was no issue, then what the hell is Rand Paul talking about? Change from what?
BTW, although Texas hispanics vote republican more than hispanics nationally, that number is still only 27%, so denying that many in the GOP have racial issues (or dodging the question of how serious and prevalent racism is in the GOP vs on the Democrat side) ain't gonna buy you much credibility with the 73% who aren't voting for the GOP.
Lmfao so I guess drug laws are racist too bc they disproportionately effect blacks?
What a crock of shit bro, what's worse is you fucking believe the idiocy you spout off
-
Any policy (and the real life execution thereof) that disproportionately penalizes racial minorities. The Arizona ID law, NY's "Stop and frisk" and the new Voter ID laws
So basically it's exactly what I said, if you're against ILLEGAL immigration in the mind of a dumb ass liberal you're anti brown...correct?
-
What specific rhetoric and which prominent Republicans?
The most prominent republican lawmaker is probably Congressman Steve King (R - Iowa) who seems to specialize in that shit...and it's not just me saying that: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-gop-s-steve-king-problem-20130619 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-gop-s-steve-king-problem-20130619)
Lots of Steve King remarks to choose from but I liked this one: When speaking about Latino immigrants, he said: If you bring people from a violent civilization into a less-violent civilization, you’re going to have more violence right? It’s like pouring hot water into cold water, does it raise the temperature or not?
Steve is hardly unique on the Republican side, though. Numerous other, less popular GOP politicians have caught heat for racially offensive remarks including (but certainly not limited to) Don Young (R - Alaska), Former Senator George Allen (R - Va), East Haven, Ct. Mayor Joseph Maturo, Jr. (R), State Sen. Jake Knotts (R-SC), NC GOP Precinct Chair Don Yelton, and the list would on (but my internet is super-slow right now because I'm uploading to huge log files for work).
Also, if "prominent republican" isn't limited to gov't officials, then the top dog when it comes to racially offensive rhetoric would have to be Rush Limbaugh, wouldn't it?
-
Lmfao so I guess drug laws are racist too bc they disproportionately effect blacks?
The drug laws aren't but the enforcement of them clearly is.
I don't toss around insults as quickly as you do but if you don't agree then you are either a complete freakin' idiot or just a lyin' sack of shit.
-
The drug laws aren't but the enforcement of them clearly is.
I don't toss around insults as quickly as you do but if you don't agree then you are either a complete freakin' idiot or just a lyin' sack of shit.
Black people committ crimes because they are stupid and can't control themselves. There is no proof race is a factor in drug policing. None what so ever. You can't infer that because blacks are incarcerated at a higher race the justice system is unfairly dispensing justice.
-
So basically it's exactly what I said, if you're against ILLEGAL immigration in the mind of a dumb ass liberal you're anti brown...correct?
Shit-for-brains, if you hassle every brown person (legal or not) in an effort to find out who's a legal immigrant, that's bullshit.
Look, if you have some good intelligence that a Latino-looking person is going set off a nuke, that's a different story; By all means, hassle all the Latinos so you can avert a serious loss of life.
But hassling all people who look hispanic to some idiot cops to find out about their immigration status? Not appropriate. And good luck finding hispanic citizens who think that it would be appropriate. For the most part, they know better.
For fuck's sake, you as a person with Japanese ancestry should understand this shit a little. If possible, why don't you ask some of your aging Japanese family members how fair the Japanese internment seemed during WW2?
-
The most prominent republican lawmaker is probably Congressman Steve King (R - Iowa) who seems to specialize in that shit...and it's not just me saying that: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-gop-s-steve-king-problem-20130619 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-gop-s-steve-king-problem-20130619)
Lots of Steve King remarks to choose from but I liked this one: When speaking about Latino immigrants, he said: If you bring people from a violent civilization into a less-violent civilization, you’re going to have more violence right? It’s like pouring hot water into cold water, does it raise the temperature or not?
Steve is hardly unique on the Republican side, though. Numerous other, less popular GOP politicians have caught heat for racially offensive remarks including (but certainly not limited to) Don Young (R - Alaska), Former Senator George Allen (R - Va), East Haven, Ct. Mayor Joseph Maturo, Jr. (R), State Sen. Jake Knotts (R-SC), NC GOP Precinct Chair Don Yelton, and the list would on (but my internet is super-slow right now because I'm uploading to huge log files for work).
Also, if "prominent republican" isn't limited to gov't officials, then the top dog when it comes to racially offensive rhetoric would have to be Rush Limbaugh, wouldn't it?
What makes Steve King a prominent Republican? And Boehner, who is a "prominent" Republican, has rejected King's comments: “What he said does not reflect the values of the American people or the Republican Party,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) after one of King’s recent statements. I don't see him being any more "prominent" than someone like Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas is a "prominent" Democrat.
And who the heck is Joseph Maturo? Mayor of a town 29,257 strong?? A NC precinct chair?
What did these people that you listed say?
-
Black people committ crimes because they are stupid and can't control themselves. There is no proof race is a factor in drug policing. None what so ever. You can't infer that because blacks are incarcerated at a higher race the justice system is unfairly dispensing justice.
Back up your claims with some links. Because I can do that with my claims with ease.
-
Back up your claims with some links. Because I can do that with my claims with ease.
Back up your claims, dimwit. You're the one who made the claim. Provide definitive proof that racism exists. Not some bullshit opinion or interpretation of statistics but documented facts.
-
What makes Steve King a prominent Republican? And Boehner, who is a "prominent" Republican, has rejected King's comments: “What he said does not reflect the values of the American people or the Republican Party,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) after one of King’s recent statements. I don't see him being any more "prominent" than someone like Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas is a "prominent" Democrat.
And who the heck is Joseph Maturo? Mayor of a town 29,257 strong?? A NC precinct chair?
What did these people that you listed say?
C'mon, BB. You're being a little disingenuous, aren't you?
prominent
prom·i·nent
[prom-uh-nuhnt]
1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable: Her eyes are her most prominent feature.
2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting.
3. leading, important, or well-known: a prominent citizen.
If Boehner saw fit to comment on King's BS, wouldn't that alone tend to make you think that King stands out some?
In regard to specific statements by this by-no-means-exhaustive list of repubs who've made racially offensive remarks, you can use google if you're really interested.
BTW, I'm guessing that you already know of some of the shitty remarks uttered by Rush Limbaugh. You're not contesting that he's prominent, are ya?
-
Back up your claims, dimwit. You're the one who made the claim. Provide definitive proof that racism exists. Not some bullshit opinion or interpretation of statistics but documented facts.
If I do back up my claims with links, will you?
-
If I do back up my claims with links, will you?
My claim is that you are full of shit and your opinion is based on your political bias. What the fuck are you talking about links when you ASSerted the claim, dimwit. Prove there is racism involved. And the fact more are in jail does not prove shit.
-
Shit-for-brains, if you hassle every brown person (legal or not) in an effort to find out who's a legal immigrant, that's bullshit.
Look, if you have some good intelligence that a Latino-looking person is going set off a nuke, that's a different story; By all means, hassle all the Latinos so you can avert a serious loss of life.
But hassling all people who look hispanic to some idiot cops to find out about their immigration status? Not appropriate. And good luck finding hispanic citizens who think that it would be appropriate. For the most part, they know better.
For fuck's sake, you as a person with Japanese ancestry should understand this shit a little. If possible, why don't you ask some of your aging Japanese family members how fair the Japanese internment seemed during WW2?
You see I understand the difference between a law directed at a certain race and one that disproportionately effects one b/c they disproportionately break the law.
You see both as the same but there is a huge difference.
Please list some laws that you believe target minorities...Notice I said target, not effect them.
Illegal immigration laws dont target minorities, drug laws dont target minorities, voter id laws dont target minorities
-
C'mon, BB. You're being a little disingenuous, aren't you?
prominent
prom·i·nent
[prom-uh-nuhnt]
1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable: Her eyes are her most prominent feature.
2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting.
3. leading, important, or well-known: a prominent citizen.
If Boehner saw fit to comment on King's BS, wouldn't that alone tend to make you think that King stands out some?
In regard to specific statements by this by-no-means-exhaustive list of repubs who've made racially offensive remarks, you can use google if you're really interested.
BTW, I'm guessing that you already know of some of the shitty remarks uttered by Rush Limbaugh. You're not contesting that he's prominent, are ya?
I know what the word prominent means. It isn't just someone with a big mouth. You said this: "You need only listen to the rhetoric used by some prominent republicans when speaking about issues like immigration to get the idea that the GOP is no place for racial minorities." You were taking about party leaders, not anyone with an audience (which every member of Congress has).
No, I'm not going to look up links to support claims you claim the "prominent" mayor of Podunk, USA made. But I'm calling B.S. Besides, you said this:
Back up your claims with some links. Because I can do that with my claims with ease.
-
You see I understand the difference between a law directed at a certain race and one that disproportionately effects one b/c they disproportionately break the law.
You see both as the same but there is a huge difference.
laws dont target minorities, drug laws dont target minorities, voter id laws dont target minorities
Dimwit will never see that. He thinks the fact more are incarcerated is proof in and of itself that racism is involved.
-
My claim is that you are full of shit and your opinion is based on your political bias. What the fuck are you talking about links when you ASSerted the claim, dimwit. Prove there is racism involved. And the fact more are in jail does not prove shit.
That might be one of your claims but this is the one I'm talking about, "There is no proof race is a factor in drug policing. None what so ever."
You're known to talk out your ass (e.g., authentic Mexican food can't be found in the USA) so I want to know if you have any realistic (non-troll) basis for your claim. If you tell me that you'll post links supporting your claim about race not being a factor in drug policing if I first post links supporting my position that race often does play a factor in the way drug laws are enforced in the USA, then I'll do it. (Even though I'm pretty sure you wouldn't fulfill your end of the agreement -- which is no big because it'd be one more thing I could bring up to show that you're just an ignorant troll, so it'd be all good.)
-
That might be one of your claims but this is the one I'm talking about, "There is no proof race is a factor in drug policing. None what so ever."
You're known to talk out your ass (e.g., authentic Mexican food can't be found in the USA) so I want to know if you have any realistic (non-troll) basis for your claim. If you tell me that you'll post links supporting your claim about race not being a factor in drug policing if I first post links supporting my position that race often does play a factor in the way drug laws are enforced in the USA, then I'll do it. (Even though I'm pretty sure you wouldn't fulfill your end of the agreement -- which is no big because it'd be one more thing I could bring up to show that you're just an ignorant troll, so it'd be all good.)
Balls in your court, dimwit. You're entire argument is that more blacks are in jail because of racism.
-
....
Illegal immigration laws dont target minorities, drug laws dont target minorities, voter id laws dont target minorities
Props to you for realizing that some laws DO have a disproportionate effect on certain groups by trying to re-frame the argument to discuss intent. But even that is laughable. Especially in regard to Voter ID laws.
-
...
You're entire argument is that more blacks are in jail because of racism.
Really? Show me where I said that. I'll wait...
-
Really? Show me where I said that. I'll wait...
Where's your proof?
-
Props to you for realizing that some laws DO have a disproportionate effect on certain groups by trying to re-frame the argument to discuss intent. But even that is laughable. Especially in regard to Voter ID laws.
Im not reframing anything dumb ass I am bringing you back to the central point of relevance.
OF FUCKING COURSE LAWS DISPROPORTIONATELY EFFECT RACES, that doesnt mean shit...meth laws dispropotionately effect white people. Laws against drunk driving generally disproportionately effect whites...THAT DOESNT MEAN THEY ARE TARGETING THEM!!!
There is a HUGE difference between effecting certain races b/c they break that law more and targeting certain races.
how do voter id laws target minorities?
-
Im not reframing anything dumb ass I am bringing you back to the central point of relevance.
OF FUCKING COURSE LAWS DISPROPORTIONATELY EFFECT RACES, that doesnt mean shit...meth laws dispropotionately effect white people. Laws against drunk driving generally disproportionately effect whites...THAT DOESNT MEAN THEY ARE TARGETING THEM!!!
There is a HUGE difference between effecting certain races b/c they break that law more and targeting certain races.
how do voter id laws target minorities?
Dimwit will never be able to fathom the possibility that blacks just commit more crimes therefore go to jail more often.
-
That might be one of your claims but this is the one I'm talking about, "There is no proof race is a factor in drug policing. None what so ever."
You're known to talk out your ass (e.g., authentic Mexican food can't be found in the USA) so I want to know if you have any realistic (non-troll) basis for your claim. If you tell me that you'll post links supporting your claim about race not being a factor in drug policing if I first post links supporting my position that race often does play a factor in the way drug laws are enforced in the USA, then I'll do it. (Even though I'm pretty sure you wouldn't fulfill your end of the agreement -- which is no big because it'd be one more thing I could bring up to show that you're just an ignorant troll, so it'd be all good.)
Where's the proof it does? You're the one you thinks it does. Come on, dimwit. Prove your claim.
-
Where's your proof?
Ok, troll. No more attention for you from me.
-
...
how do voter id laws target minorities?
Is this an honest question?
(Not trying to offend -- I'm asking are you really unfamiliar with reasoning on the left for why Voter ID laws ARE targeting minorities?)
I don't think of you as a troll so I'll answer if you're serious.
-
Ok, troll. No more attention for you from me.
Back pedaling. You can't prove shit.
-
Where's the proof it does? You're the one you thinks it does. Come on, dimwit. Prove your claim.
Which claim?
-
Back pedaling. You can't prove shit.
Back pedaling? What are you talking about? I already proved it. You're messing with me, right?
-
Is this an honest question?
(Not trying to offend -- I'm asking are you really unfamiliar with reasoning on the left for why Voter ID laws ARE targeting minorities?)
I don't think of you as a troll so I'll answer if you're serious.
do you understand there is a difference between a law that targets a racial group and one that effects them b/c they break that law more?
If you do you will understand why the lefts "reasoning" is not valid.
-
Back pedaling? What are you talking about? I already proved it. You're messing with me, right?
You didn't prove shit. You have no proof. You want to believe racism is involved because that's your political bias.
-
You didn't prove shit. You have no proof. You want to believe racism is involved because that's your political bias.
I was supposed to be trying to prove shit? I don't get it. I never said racism was involved with shit. Everybody poops. Everybody.
-
I was supposed to be trying to prove shit? I don't get it. I never said racism was involved with shit. Everybody poops. Everybody.
You did dimwit. Stop back pedaling. Tony is owning your ass.
-
Kore do gun laws target white males?
-
how about affirmative action laws? do they target white males
-
do you understand there is a difference between a law that targets a racial group and one that effects them b/c they break that law more?
...
I guess you're not talking about Voter ID laws here? Cuz those are clearly laws that are targeting blacks (a higher percentage of whom are poor compared to the percentage of whites) in that they're designed to prevent blacks (and other poor folks) from voting. It's said that it's because poor black folks seldom vote republican but maybe that's some conspiritard shit?
And you seem to be claiming that you feel that there are more racial minorities smoking pot than whites, too, is that right?
-
I guess you're not talking about Voter ID laws here? Cuz those are clearly laws that are targeting blacks (a higher percentage of whom are poor compared to the percentage of whites) in that they're designed to prevent blacks (and other poor folks) from voting. It's said that it's because poor black folks seldom vote republican but maybe that's some conspiritard shit?
And you seem to be claiming that you feel that there are more racial minorities smoking pot than whites, too, is that right?
Nothing but conspiracy theories, dimwit.
-
Kore do gun laws target white males?
Without thinking too much about it, I would say yes.
I'm not a gun owner (too aggressive IRL to trust myself with a gun) so I'm not very up-to-speed on gun control stuff.
-
You did dimwit. Stop back pedaling. Tony is owning your ass.
Pipe down, son. Men are talking here. lol
-
I guess you're not talking about Voter ID laws here? Cuz those are clearly laws that are targeting blacks (a higher percentage of whom are poor compared to the percentage of whites) in that they're designed to prevent blacks (and other poor folks) from voting. It's said that it's because poor black folks seldom vote republican but maybe that's some conspiritard shit?
And you seem to be claiming that you feel that there are more racial minorities smoking pot than whites, too, is that right?
again you are confusing targeting with effecting...voter id laws are not written in a way to target any specific group. I have never seen a voter id law that requires minorities to do something more than what whites would have to do to enjoy the same benefit...
I never claimed minorities smoke more pot than whites, WTF is wrong with you?
-
Without thinking too much about it, I would say yes.
I'm not a gun owner (too aggressive IRL to trust myself with a gun) so I'm not very up-to-speed on gun control stuff.
how to gun laws target white males?
-
Pipe down, son. Men are talking here. lol
Back pedaling and trying to redirect the conversation. Sure signs that you have no proof.
-
again you are confusing targeting with effecting...voter id laws are not written in a way to target any specific group. I have never seen a voter id law that requires minorities to do something more than what whites would have to do to enjoy the same benefit...
I never claimed minorities smoke more pot than whites, WTF is wrong with you?
See the amazing leap of logic employed by dimwit
-
how about affirmative action laws? do they target white males
-
how to gun laws target white males?
Well, to really try to answer I guess I'd need to know which gun laws and where.
Any gun laws?
If it's some law about automatic weapons in Wyoming, then that law will primarily affect white guys.
If it's about handguns in DC, then...well, you know.
-
Back pedaling and trying to redirect the conversation. Sure signs that you have no proof.
Shush now. Go play.
-
Well, to really try to answer I guess I'd need to know which gun laws and where.
Any gun laws?
If it's some law about automatic weapons in Wyoming, then that law will primarily affect white guys.
If it's about handguns in DC, then...well, you know.
assault weapons ban, Requiring CLEO's sign off on NFA gun trust, background checks...any one of the recent libtard ideas to help prevent mass shootings that wouldnt do shit...
-
Shush now. Go play.
Please, this kind of behavior only demonstrates how much of an imbecile you are. You've been trying desperately to redirect but you always fail. You can't prove anything you claim with facts and you know it. Your claim isn't about facts, it's about how you feel about the subject. You need racism to be the answer because the alternative that blacks are more prone to criminality is something you will never ne willing to accept. Your politics won't let you.
-
again you are confusing targeting with effecting...voter id laws are not written in a way to target any specific group. I have never seen a voter id law that requires minorities to do something more than what whites would have to do to enjoy the same benefit...
Yes, but getting a state-issued picture ID is a hardship for the extremely poor. And since blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of the extremely poor (and believe you me, repub marketing doods know this) the law is discriminatory. Ya know if, as a part of the law, they would send around mobile gov't vehicles that could go to the poor people and give them cost-free ID's, then I wouldn't have a problem with voter ID laws. Otherwise it's just some shit akin to gerrymandering that was cooked up by Karl Rove-types to try to effect election outcomes by semi-shady methods.
I never claimed minorities smoke more pot than whites, WTF is wrong with you?
I inferred that because you said something along the lines of that when higher prosecution rates of one group are higher than that of another it's just because the first group commits more offenses. So I thought you'd assume that the reason a higher percentage of blacks are prosecuted for MJ crimes than white folks is because blacks just smoked pot more. (And not because cops let more white kids go --- because that'd be racist.)
-
Please, this kind of behavior only demonstrates how much of an imbecile you are. You've been trying desperately to redirect but you always fail. You can't prove anything you claim with facts and you know it. Your claim isn't about facts, it's about how you feel about the subject. You need racism to be the answer because the alternative that blacks are more prone to criminality is something you will never ne willing to accept. Your politics won't let you.
Give it up, pencil-neck.
The internet is a big place. I'm sure someone somewhere wants to talk to you.
-
Give it up, pencil-neck.
The internet is a big place. I'm sure someone somewhere wants to talk to you.
Still trying this tactic after it failed so many times before?
-
Still trying this tactic after it failed so many times before?
Man, you ARE persistent. :)
What do you want again?
-
Yes, but getting a state-issued picture ID is a hardship for the extremely poor. And since blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of the extremely poor (and believe you me, repub marketing doods know this) the law is discriminatory. Ya know if, as a part of the law, they would send around mobile gov't vehicles that could go to the poor people and give them cost-free ID's, then I wouldn't have a problem with voter ID laws. Otherwise it's just some shit akin to gerrymandering that was cooked up by Karl Rove-types to try to effect election outcomes by semi-shady methods.
Actually youd be wrong sir, more whites live in poverty than any other race...
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/
what you probably look at are the % rates of each race that lives in poverty which is fine but not when looking at what who will be effected more by a law. A voter ID law will actually effect more whites than any other race
-
I inferred that because you said something along the lines of that when higher prosecution rates of one group are higher than that of another it's just because the first group commits more offenses. So I thought you'd assume that the reason a higher percentage of blacks are prosecuted for MJ crimes than white folks is because blacks just smoked pot more. (And not because cops let more white kids go --- because that'd be racist.)
this again has nothing to do with A LAW TARGETING MINORITIES
tell me how drug laws TARGET minorities...
-
Man, you ARE persistent. :)
What do you want again?
For you to prove your bullshit claim.
-
I inferred that because you said something along the lines of that when higher prosecution rates of one group are higher than that of another it's just because the first group commits more offenses. So I thought you'd assume that the reason a higher percentage of blacks are prosecuted for MJ crimes than white folks is because blacks just smoked pot more. (And not because cops let more white kids go --- because that'd be racist.)
Black people are overwhelmingly more criminal than any other race.
Black people only make up 12% of the US Pop.
-
assault weapons ban, Requiring CLEO's sign off on NFA gun trust, background checks...any one of the recent libtard ideas to help prevent mass shootings that wouldnt do shit...
I'm not so informed about any of that so I shouldn't really answer.
This is an interesting line of questioning, though. I could be wrong but you seem to be pointing out that ALL laws are going to disproportionately affect some group or another (other than just the group made up of those who have broken the law in question). I agree with that point and think it's unavoidable but the DEGREE to which some group gets hosed by a particular law is what needs to be looked at and compared to the benefit society as a whole will receive as a result of that group getting hosed.
Also, I don't see the need to make much of distinction between a law's intent and its execution. Even if a law is relatively benign but it's being enforced in a crappy and discriminatory way, then that law should probably be chucked. (Or maybe King Obama, like GWB before him, can simply issue a signing statement so that the law is not enforced, haha.)
-
I'm not so informed about any of that so I shouldn't really answer.
This is an interesting line of questioning, though. I could be wrong but you seem to be pointing out that ALL laws are going to disproportionately affect some group or another (other than just the group made up of those who have broken the law in question). I agree with that point and think it's unavoidable but the DEGREE to which some group gets hosed by a particular law is what needs to be looked at and compared to the benefit society as a whole will receive as a result of that group getting hosed.
Also, I don't see the need to make much of distinction between a law's intent and its execution. Even if a law is relatively benign but it's being enforced in a crappy and discriminatory way, then that law should probably be chucked. (Or maybe King Obama, like GWB before him, can simply issue a signing statement so that the law is not enforced, haha.)
No my point is any law is going to disprotionately effect the people breaking that law.
If the law is written in such a way that target them for an aspect outside of breaking that law then yea it needs to be examined.
You however have not given any example of a law that is written in a way that targets minorities.
As a matter of fact the one law you harped on (voter id requirements) would actually effect more white people than minorities.
-
Actually youd be wrong sir, more whites live in poverty than any other race...
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/
what you probably look at are the % rates of each race that lives in poverty which is fine but not when looking at what who will be effected more by a law. A voter ID law will actually effect more whites than any other race
You're right, that's why I wrote percentage. (After all, blacks are only, what?, 10% of the population.)
And that's relevant, I think. If you're a repub marketing guy, you think something like this: We got a group of desperately poor folks. We know that blacks, regardless of income tend to not vote republican. We know that we get a lot of votes from rich white. We know that desperately poor blacks are a higher percentage of the total black population than desperately poor whites are as a percentage of the total white population. So if we make a law that affects the poor, it will affect a higher percentage of blacks than it will the percentage of whites. In effect, less votes from blacks for the opposition.
(Not exactly smoothly put, but understandable, I think.)
-
For you to prove your bullshit claim.
What claim? Are you really still here?
-
You're right, that's why I wrote percentage. (After all, blacks are only, what?, 10% of the population.)
And that's relevant, I think. If you're a repub marketing guy, you think something like this: We got a group of desperately poor folks. We know that blacks, regardless of income tend to not vote republican. We know that we get a lot of votes from rich white. We know that desperately poor blacks are a higher percentage of the total black population than desperately poor whites are as a percentage of the total white population. So if we make a law that affects the poor, it will affect a higher percentage of blacks than it will the percentage of whites. In effect, less votes from blacks for the opposition.
(Not exactly smoothly put, but understandable, I think.)
LOL yes it effects a higher % of blacks but effects more whites than any other race.
based on your libtard view of conservative thinking you would still be losing more votes than you would cause the liberal to lose...
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?
you need to look at the actual numbers in this situation not percentages!!!!
-
If the law is written in such a way that target them for an aspect outside of breaking that law then yea it needs to be examined.
We agree!
I just also think an issue needs to be made when law enforcement takes what could be fair law (like Stop and Frisk) and enforces it in a way that's clearly discriminatory (like Stop and Frisk).
-
LOL yes it effects a higher % of blacks but effects more whites than any other race.
based on your libtard view of conservative thinking you would still be losing more votes than you would cause the liberal to lose...
...
You sure? Wouldn't that only be correct if all (or a huge percentage) of the poor whites were sure to vote for the right?
It's a given that the blacks will vote left. It's not a given that the whites will vote right.
Probably a wash on the poor white side but on the black side you've eliminated a lot dem votes.
-
Anyway, to be continued if you want.
Lately I've got more empathy than usual for minorities. I've been reading Howard Zinn's book, "The People's Guide to the History of the US" and native american indians, blacks, and women have historically gotten the shittiest end of the stick since the word go in the USA. For fuck's sake, you should read the stoopid shit Thomas Jefferson (who I'd always admired before) wrote about women. Boggles the mind.
-
You sure? Wouldn't that only be correct if all (or a huge percentage) of the poor whites were sure to vote for the right?
It's a given that the blacks will vote left. It's not a given that the whites will vote right.
Probably a wash on the poor white side but on the black side you've eliminated a lot dem votes.
its all assumptions, youre assuming all blacks will vote and vote dem.
Whites generally have a higher voting rate, generally vote rep etc.
The FACT IS A VOTER ID LAW WILL EFFECT MORE WHITE PEOPLE THAN BLACKS
-
Anyway, to be continued if you want.
Lately I've got more empathy than usual for minorities. I've been reading Howard Zinn's book, "The People's Guide to the History of the US" and native american indians, blacks, and women have historically gotten the shittiest end of the stick since the word go in the USA. For fuck's sake, you should read the stoopid shit Thomas Jefferson (who I'd always admired before) wrote about women. Boggles the mind.
past incidents do not mean that laws should be made in a way that favor minorities today.
-
...
The FACT IS A VOTER ID LAW WILL EFFECT MORE WHITE PEOPLE THAN BLACKS
Sure, that's right. Except that the poor white vote will be split between right and left (thanks Christians!) and the poor black vote will be much closer to totally left (especially with a candidate like Obama).
So the net effect will be that more dem votes are discouraged than repub votes.
Somewhere you wrote that these are all assumptions and you're correct in that. But these are assumptions that the republican party is making, too. Which is why Voter ID laws are being pushed by the right. (They know if everyone voted they wouldn't win much at all.)
Here's some more raw meat for ya: Voter ID laws also discourage female voters more than male voters, too. Can you guess why?
-
Black people are overwhelmingly more criminal than any other race.
Black people only make up 12% of the US Pop.
:D
LOL
I don't know though.... some of those beanybeaner guys are pretty high up the damn list too.
-
:D
LOL
I don't know though.... some of those beanybeaner guys are pretty high up the damn list too.
It's true.
-
It's true.
I won't argue that.
-
Sure, that's right. Except that the poor white vote will be split between right and left (thanks Christians!) and the poor black vote will be much closer to totally left (especially with a candidate like Obama).
So the net effect will be that more dem votes are discouraged than repub votes.
Somewhere you wrote that these are all assumptions and you're correct in that. But these are assumptions that the republican party is making, too. Which is why Voter ID laws are being pushed by the right. (They know if everyone voted they wouldn't win much at all.)
Here's some more raw meat for ya: Voter ID laws also discourage female voters more than male voters, too. Can you guess why?
LMFAO such horse shit but you believe the stupidity so whatever.
voter id laws dont discourage people from voting anymore than gun laws discourage people from owning a gun ::)
such stupidity!!! LMFAO
-
Every hispanic I know is conservative, you have to realize that most hispanics especially first and second generation are catholics.
You know part of that group libtards like to make fun of?
This is totally true... I live in two highly Hispanic areas. Los Angeles and Puerto Rico. 2nd Generation Hispanics from the OC and places like that are well to do religious and conservative. BUT...here in puerto rico... Most are democrats as this is the epitome of a welfare state. The way out for most of the youngsters here is to join the army. But most everyone here is on welfare
-
LMFAO such horse shit but you believe the stupidity so whatever.
voter id laws dont discourage people from voting anymore than gun laws discourage people from owning a gun ::)
such stupidity!!! LMFAO
Absolutely true. But morons like the one you responded just repeat talking points without actually looking at voter turnout AFTER voter id laws were implemented.
Let's read what happened in Georgia.
Minority turnout increased dramatically after Georgia voter-ID law
Politico’s Mike Allen called this “the most surprising story of the day” [see update!], which really only applies to the hysterics and the demagogues who oppose measures to combat ballot fraud. After Georgia passed a voter-ID requirement in time for the 2008 election cycle, critics claimed that it would suppress black and Hispanic votes and lead to a new era of Jim Crow. Instead, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution discovered, it’s led to a new era of eating crow (via The Corner):
When Georgia became one of the first states in the nation to demand a photo ID at the ballot box, both sides served up dire predictions. Opponents labeled it a Jim Crow-era tactic that would suppress the minority vote. Supporters insisted it was needed to combat fraud that imperiled the integrity of the elections process.
But both claims were overblown, according to a review of by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of statewide voting patterns in the five years since the law took effect.
Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.
The AJC frames this in a strange manner, comparing a factual with a hypothetical counterfactual:
"On the other hand, Georgia’s top elections official could not point to a single case of ballot fraud the voter ID law had prevented."
Er, perhaps that’s because it actually prevented the ballot fraud from taking place. Either the top elections official doesn’t understand the word “prevented” or the reporter doesn’t.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/opinion/preston-texas-id-laws/
Texas voter ID law didn't suppress vote
Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes. If they are correct, then Texas should have seen turnout drop off in 2013 compared with the closest comparable election.
The 2013 election in Texas was an off-year, constitutional amendment election. Texas holds constitutional amendment elections every two years, after its legislative sessions, to give Texans the opportunity to approve or reject items that the legislature has approved for a vote. The Texas secretary of state administers elections and posts totals going back to 1992.
According to the Texas secretary of state's office, 10 amendments were up for vote in 2011, the last constitutional amendment election before the voter ID law passed. Some issues received more votes than others. The one most voted on received 690,052 votes, for and against. Overall, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on these 10 constitutional amendments
If voter ID suppressed votes, we should see a drop in turnout, right? Well, according to the Texas secretary of state's office, nine amendments went up for vote in 2013. The amendment that attracted the most votes, Proposition One, attracted 1,144,844. The average number of votes cast in 2013 was 1,099,670.
Turnout for the 2011 election was 5.37% of registered voters; for 2013 it was about 8%.
Democrats allege that voter ID will suppress the vote in predominantly Hispanic regions. Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic. In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted.
-
LMFAO such horse shit but you believe the stupidity so whatever.
voter id laws dont discourage people from voting anymore than gun laws discourage people from owning a gun ::)
such stupidity!!! LMFAO
Explain how it's stupid, then. Anyone can just throw around insults, ya fat little slant-eyed bastard.
-
This is totally true... I live in two highly Hispanic areas. Los Angeles and Puerto Rico. 2nd Generation Hispanics from the OC and places like that are well to do religious and conservative. BUT...here in puerto rico... Most are democrats as this is the epitome of a welfare state. The way out for most of the youngsters here is to join the army. But most everyone here is on welfare
Hey OD, is it possible that Hispanics from the OC being politically conservative has more to do with being from the OC? (I've been working in Irvine a lot lately and I see mostly rich folks there...)
-
YES, IT'S STUPID TO THINK VOTER ID LAWS DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM VOTING.
Absolutely true. But morons like the one you responded just repeat talking points without actually looking at voter turnout AFTER voter id laws were implemented.
Let's read what happened in Georgia.
Minority turnout increased dramatically after Georgia voter-ID law
Politico’s Mike Allen called this “the most surprising story of the day” [see update!], which really only applies to the hysterics and the demagogues who oppose measures to combat ballot fraud. After Georgia passed a voter-ID requirement in time for the 2008 election cycle, critics claimed that it would suppress black and Hispanic votes and lead to a new era of Jim Crow. Instead, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution discovered, it’s led to a new era of eating crow (via The Corner):
When Georgia became one of the first states in the nation to demand a photo ID at the ballot box, both sides served up dire predictions. Opponents labeled it a Jim Crow-era tactic that would suppress the minority vote. Supporters insisted it was needed to combat fraud that imperiled the integrity of the elections process.
But both claims were overblown, according to a review of by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of statewide voting patterns in the five years since the law took effect.
Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.
The AJC frames this in a strange manner, comparing a factual with a hypothetical counterfactual:
"On the other hand, Georgia’s top elections official could not point to a single case of ballot fraud the voter ID law had prevented."
Er, perhaps that’s because it actually prevented the ballot fraud from taking place. Either the top elections official doesn’t understand the word “prevented” or the reporter doesn’t.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/opinion/preston-texas-id-laws/
Texas voter ID law didn't suppress vote
Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes. If they are correct, then Texas should have seen turnout drop off in 2013 compared with the closest comparable election.
The 2013 election in Texas was an off-year, constitutional amendment election. Texas holds constitutional amendment elections every two years, after its legislative sessions, to give Texans the opportunity to approve or reject items that the legislature has approved for a vote. The Texas secretary of state administers elections and posts totals going back to 1992.
According to the Texas secretary of state's office, 10 amendments were up for vote in 2011, the last constitutional amendment election before the voter ID law passed. Some issues received more votes than others. The one most voted on received 690,052 votes, for and against. Overall, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on these 10 constitutional amendments
If voter ID suppressed votes, we should see a drop in turnout, right? Well, according to the Texas secretary of state's office, nine amendments went up for vote in 2013. The amendment that attracted the most votes, Proposition One, attracted 1,144,844. The average number of votes cast in 2013 was 1,099,670.
Turnout for the 2011 election was 5.37% of registered voters; for 2013 it was about 8%.
Democrats allege that voter ID will suppress the vote in predominantly Hispanic regions. Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic. In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted.
Goddamn, you're dumb.
Voter ID laws don't discourage voting in much in general (or much at all, really) -- I've seen estimates of a 1% - 3% suppressive effect on dem voters.
So, basically, no one is saying that the difference is enough to sway the results of any but the closest of elections. The point is that shady-ass repubs know that popular opinion is mostly against them (IRL -- here on GB, it's another story, lol) so they're trying to affect election outcomes by putting obstacles in the path of those who would likely not vote for them. (Voter ID laws aren't the worst thing they've done in this vein -- Look up gerrymandering in Texas by Tom Delay to really see what's up.)
-
YES, IT'S STUPID TO THINK VOTER ID LAWS DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM VOTING.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/opinion/preston-texas-id-laws/
Texas voter ID law didn't suppress vote
Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes. If they are correct, then Texas should have seen turnout drop off in 2013 compared with the closest comparable election.
The 2013 election in Texas was an off-year, constitutional amendment election. Texas holds constitutional amendment elections every two years, after its legislative sessions, to give Texans the opportunity to approve or reject items that the legislature has approved for a vote. The Texas secretary of state administers elections and posts totals going back to 1992.
According to the Texas secretary of state's office, 10 amendments were up for vote in 2011, the last constitutional amendment election before the voter ID law passed. Some issues received more votes than others. The one most voted on received 690,052 votes, for and against. Overall, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on these 10 constitutional amendments
If voter ID suppressed votes, we should see a drop in turnout, right? Well, according to the Texas secretary of state's office, nine amendments went up for vote in 2013. The amendment that attracted the most votes, Proposition One, attracted 1,144,844. The average number of votes cast in 2013 was 1,099,670.
Turnout for the 2011 election was 5.37% of registered voters; for 2013 it was about 8%.
Democrats allege that voter ID will suppress the vote in predominantly Hispanic regions. Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic. In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted.
-
YES, IT'S STUPID TO THINK VOTER ID LAWS DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM VOTING.
If you say it enough times, it will be true, right?
-
Faced with facts, the retards on the left deflect.
Keep deflecting, morons.
-
Faced with facts, the retards on the left deflect.
Keep deflecting, morons.
Faced with a nuanced argument, morons like Dario will jump to the wrong conclusions. Drive on, retard.
-
Voting did not decrease in those 2 states, nor in other states, that enacted voter id laws.
Yet, there is a libtard on this thread who continues to repeat the leftist lie.
-
Voting did not decrease in those 2 states, nor in other states, that enacted voter id laws.
Yet, there is a libtard on this thread who continues to repeat the leftist lie.
Was I not clear enough?
The effect of Voter ID laws on the number of total voters is negligible. There are probably a million and 1 factors that are more important when it comes to turnout.
The intended effect of Voter ID laws (besides, haha, reducing voter fraud) is to suppress the vote of the poor.
Luckily for you, the voting public is made up of more than just folks on this sub-forum (who talk seriously about whether it might be OK to only let folks with money vote, fer fuck's sake).
-
Was I not clear enough?
The effect of Voter ID laws on the number of total voters is negligible. There are probably a million and 1 factors that are more important when it comes to turnout.
The intended effect of Voter ID laws (besides, haha, reducing voter fraud) is to suppress the vote of the poor.
Luckily for you, the voting public is made up of more than just folks on this sub-forum (who talk seriously about whether it might be OK to only let folks with money vote, fer fuck's sake).
What's so hard about obtaining identification? You need it for employment and other things.
-
The intended effect of Voter ID laws (besides, haha, reducing voter fraud) is to suppress the vote of the poor.
On what basis do you conclude this?
-
What's so hard about obtaining identification? You need it for employment and other things.
Yeah, but if you're 80 years old and poor, it's difficult.
If the Voter ID laws provide for making it easier for super-poor, super-old, and super- old and poor folks to get the ID's, then I'm all for it.
-
Yeah, but if you're 80 years old and poor, it's difficult.
If the Voter ID laws provide for making it easier for super-poor, super-old, and super- old and poor folks to get the ID's, then I'm all for it.
In the example you provided only a very small number of people would be effected. I see no sense in abandoning the whole idea of providing identification for the sake of a small few. They have the ability to vote absentee.
-
On what basis do you conclude this?
Besides the arguments on left-leaning websites about the lack of voter fraud that these laws ostensibly address?
Well, there are stories like this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html)
BB, have you really not read any of this kind of stuff?
-
In the example you provided only a very small number of people would be effected.
...
Absolutely true.
As one clever libtard put it: "Chipping away at democracy, one vote at a time."
-
Absolutely true.
As one clever libtard put it: "Chipping away at democracy, one vote at a time."
That's nothing but hyperbole. You have to ask yourself what kind of voter a person who has no form of identification is going to be. If you as a private citizen wants to help those without ID obtain it than by all means more power to you but the government doesn't need to be in the business of managing a persons responsibilities.
-
Besides the arguments on left-leaning websites about the lack of voter fraud that these laws ostensibly address?
Well, there are stories like this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html)
BB, have you really not read any of this kind of stuff?
Thanks for the link. It doesn't support your contention that voter ID laws are intended to suppress poor people's votes.
No, I have not read the kinds of stories you just posted, and I'm glad I haven't. Did you actually read it?
This whole notion that requiring an ID is a form of voter suppression is just downright silly.
-
Thanks for the link. It doesn't support your contention that voter ID laws are intended to suppress poor people's votes.
No, I have not read the kinds of stories you just posted, and I'm glad I haven't. Did you actually read it?
This whole notion that requiring an ID is a form of voter suppression is just downright silly.
I think it's kinda silly, too, actually. (Silly as in ineffective, not silly as in "No way would repubs think this".)
And I just scanned this particular article but have read many like it since months ago.
With today's fantastically skewed wealth inequality, many of the numerically small rich on the right plainly feel the need to resort to trickery to maintain power in a one man/one vote country.
-
I think it's kinda silly, too, actually. (Silly as in ineffective, not silly as in "No way would repubs think this".)
And I just scanned this particular article but have read many like it since months ago.
With today's fantastically skewed wealth inequality, many of the numerically small rich on the right plainly feel the need to resort to trickery to maintain power in a one man/one vote country.
If you read many articles like the one you posted, then I understand why your viewpoint on this is unsupportable. All the guy did was pull quotes from two people saying early voting favors Democrats and then made the leap that this proves voter ID laws are designed to suppress the votes of poor people. Absurd.
Voter ID laws are not about trickery. I really don't see what the big deal is with someone having to prove their identity, especially people on public assistance. I'm not even sure how they qualify for and obtain benefits without proving their identity.
I saw a guy on a show the other day repeatedly saying voter ID laws suppress minority votes. No proof either. Just keep saying it louder and louder, as if that somehow made it true.
-
Pennsylvania’s GOP chairman, Rob Gleason, is pleased with how effective Voter ID laws were in the 2012 election. Despite President Obama’s victory, Gleason believes the laws did what they were designed to do When asked by a Pennsylvania cable news reporter earlier this week if the laws affected last year’s elections, Gleason responded: “I think we had a better election. Think about this: we cut Obama by 5 percent…I think Voter ID helped a bit in that.”
-
If you read many articles like the one you posted, then I understand why your viewpoint on this is unsupportable. All the guy did was pull quotes from two people saying early voting favors Democrats and then made the leap that this proves voter ID laws are designed to suppress the votes of poor people. Absurd.
Voter ID laws are not about trickery. I really don't see what the big deal is with someone having to prove their identity, especially people on public assistance. I'm not even sure how they qualify for and obtain benefits without proving their identity.
I saw a guy on a show the other day repeatedly saying voter ID laws suppress minority votes. No proof either. Just keep saying it louder and louder, as if that somehow made it true.
Hey, whether the tactic works or not, the point is that some repubs think it does and that's why they're for these laws.
It's not just me saying this: It's clear that in the minds of some republicans, Voter ID laws do benefit republicans by suppressing dem voting to some degree.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/25/2835101/gop-asks-party-official-resign-admits-voter-suppresses-democratic-votes/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/25/2835101/gop-asks-party-official-resign-admits-voter-suppresses-democratic-votes/)
http://www.care2.com/causes/5-republicans-who-are-getting-honest-about-voter-id-laws.html (http://www.care2.com/causes/5-republicans-who-are-getting-honest-about-voter-id-laws.html)
If you really think the idea is absurd, maybe you could explain why? (BTW, repubs have a lot of absurd ideas so absurdity by itself doesn't mean jack, lol.)
-
Hey, whether the tactic works or not, the point is that some repubs think it does and that's why they're for these laws.
It's not just me saying this: It's clear that in the minds of some republicans, Voter ID laws do benefit republicans by suppressing dem voting to some degree.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/25/2835101/gop-asks-party-official-resign-admits-voter-suppresses-democratic-votes/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/25/2835101/gop-asks-party-official-resign-admits-voter-suppresses-democratic-votes/)
http://www.care2.com/causes/5-republicans-who-are-getting-honest-about-voter-id-laws.html (http://www.care2.com/causes/5-republicans-who-are-getting-honest-about-voter-id-laws.html)
If you really think the idea is absurd, maybe you could explain why? (BTW, repubs have a lot of absurd ideas so absurdity by itself doesn't mean jack, lol.)
Those two links say the same thing as the first link you provided: they quote a handful of people who say early voting favors Democrats and that the people who will be too lazy to get an ID are likely to be Democrat voters. So what?
I think that--like the people who wrote the articles you posted--you're misusing the phrase "voter suppression." Requiring someone to prove their identity isn't discouraging or preventing people from voting. Poll taxes and literacy tests are historical examples of voter suppression. Showing an ID is not, particularly when someone has months and years to get an ID before an election.
-
Hey, whether the tactic works or not, the point is that some repubs think it does and that's why they're for these laws.
It's not just me saying this: It's clear that in the minds of some republicans, Voter ID laws do benefit republicans by suppressing dem voting to some degree.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/25/2835101/gop-asks-party-official-resign-admits-voter-suppresses-democratic-votes/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/25/2835101/gop-asks-party-official-resign-admits-voter-suppresses-democratic-votes/)
http://www.care2.com/causes/5-republicans-who-are-getting-honest-about-voter-id-laws.html (http://www.care2.com/causes/5-republicans-who-are-getting-honest-about-voter-id-laws.html)
If you really think the idea is absurd, maybe you could explain why? (BTW, repubs have a lot of absurd ideas so absurdity by itself doesn't mean jack, lol.)
It doesn't suppress the vote because no one is stopping them from getting identification. It's their own fault they don't have ID.
-
Those two links say the same thing as the first link you provided: they quote a handful of people who say early voting favors Democrats and that the people who will be too lazy to get an ID are likely to be Democrat voters. So what?
I think that--like the people who wrote the articles you posted--you're misusing the phrase "voter suppression." Requiring someone to prove their identity isn't discouraging or preventing people from voting. Poll taxes and literacy tests are historical examples of voter suppression. Showing an ID is not, particularly when someone has months and years to get an ID before an election.
if you dont quit fucking making sense he cant just repeat stupidity and expect to get anywhere with you beach
-
if you dont quit fucking making sense he cant just repeat stupidity and expect to get anywhere with you beach
I don't think he has really stepped back and throught this whole thing through. But he's not much different than the talking heads I've ben hearing repeat the same lines. Unfortunately, a lot of people just eat that stuff up.
-
I don't think he has really stepped back and throught this whole thing through. But he's not much different than the talking heads I've ben hearing repeat the same lines. Unfortunately, a lot of people just eat that stuff up.
he hasnt, he has bought into the liberal talking points hook line and sinker
-
that is all he has done, look at the "job lock" comments...LMFAO he was completely silent until the libtards came out with their talking points and then couldnt answer any questions on it...I guess he is waiting for their response before commenting...
-
Those two links say the same thing as the first link you provided: they quote a handful of people who say early voting favors Democrats and that the people who will be too lazy to get an ID are likely to be Democrat voters. So what?
I think that--like the people who wrote the articles you posted--you're misusing the phrase "voter suppression." Requiring someone to prove their identity isn't discouraging or preventing people from voting. Poll taxes and literacy tests are historical examples of voter suppression. Showing an ID is not, particularly when someone has months and years to get an ID before an election.
Handful of "people"? Why you dishonest so-and-so, lol. A handful of REPUBLICANS. (If it was only "people" I was citing, I could probably find links to a hundred prominent lefties saying the same thing.)
Not all folks have a gov't-issued photo ID. And some are is such desperate situations that to get one is a hardship. Not sure if you've heard this, but some folks don't even have a permanent place to live. Sad but true.
-
that is all he has done, look at the "job lock" comments...LMFAO he was completely silent until the libtards came out with their talking points and then couldnt answer any questions on it...I guess he is waiting for their response before commenting...
This is rich. So you're in favor of being a low-information commenter? Is that the secret to how your opinions are formed?
Would you say you're a thoughtful person, Tony? You don't strike me as one. (I know, you don't care what a anonymous blah blah blah) It seems like you're very quick to come to opinions about things and, what's worse, very reluctant to change your opinion even when confronted with inconsistencies. (You'd rather dodge questions, lol.)
-
This is rich. So you're in favor of being a low-information commenter? Is that the secret to how your opinions are formed?
Would you say you're a thoughtful person, Tony? You don't strike me as one. (I know, you don't care what a anonymous blah blah blah) It seems like you're very quick to come to opinions about things and, what's worse, very reluctant to change your opinion even when confronted with inconsistencies. (You'd rather dodge questions, lol.)
first point out the inconsistencies...
second yes my thought process is proprietary I dont wait for talking points and then run away after parroting the party line like you do.
Forming your own opinion doesnt mean youre a low information commenter LMFAO it means you take in relevant info and make up your own mind, you should try it sometime...
you have an answer for how reps were going to relieve ppl of job lock yet? or you just gonna stay with the parrot the party line and run away tactic?
-
first point out the inconsistencies...
second yes my thought process is proprietary I dont wait for talking points and then run away after parroting the party line like you do.
Forming your own opinion doesnt mean youre a low information commenter LMFAO it means you take in relevant info and make up your own mind, you should try it sometime...
you have an answer for how reps were going to relieve ppl of job lock yet? or you just gonna stay with the parrot the party line and run away tactic?
"Proprietary"? In what sense? (You don't know wtf you're talking about, do you?)
Run away? Like how you do about the subject of your 2 claimed mythical Judo National championships that you can provide almost no details at all about? (How is that not inconsistent?). Or about how you repeatedly dodged the question about whether you think that the degree of racism is higher, and that there's more of it, on the political right as opposed to on the political left?
What am I supposedly running away from now? Something to do with how I need to know how "reps" (republicans?) were going to alleviate job lock? Why would I need to know that?; If you'll remember, I pointed out that Paul Ryan seemed to think that "job lock" was an issue in 2009 (or so) but that republicans now are trying to act like it's of no concern. What is confusing about this? And why is it some sort of issue for you if I don't have the foggiest about how Ryan hoped address "job lock"?
Here's what happened: After learning that "job lock" was a reason that folks being able to work less or even quit their otherwise unsatisfactory jobs if healthcare wasn't tied to their continued employment, I googled the term ("job lock") and came across a youtube vid of Paul Ryan talking about how onerous he thought job lock was. I thought it was funny how repubs (or at least Ryan, who is a prominent republican) seem to have switched stances in a relatively short period of time. I did not watch enough of the video to find out what he was proposing that could help with job-lock in 2009, though. (Why would I?) End of story.
So, tell me, low-info dude, what did I do wrong according to your kindergarten-level code of political thinking? Did I not use my "gut" enough?
By the way, what I think you do is take in far too little "relevant info" about most subjects. That, coupled with your emotional development that seems to be stuck at "angry 10-year old" (witness your propensity for insults when others don't agree with you) makes you a typical closed-minded right-tard who really should grow the fuck up. (But you won't -- you'll just be another non-BB on BB forum so those of us who are competitive BB'ers are stuck with ya.)
-
"Proprietary"? In what sense? (You don't know wtf you're talking about, do you?)
Run away? Like how you do about the subject of your 2 claimed mythical Judo National championships that you can provide almost no details at all about? (How is that not inconsistent?). Or about how you repeatedly dodged the question about whether you think that the degree of racism is higher, and that there's more of it, on the political right as opposed to on the political left?
let me address this wall o text deflection in sections...
proprietary in the sense that is it my own process and not anyone elses, would you like me to post a link to the definition of proprietary?
yours is not proprietary b/c you dont form your own opinions you simply parrot libtard talking points...
hahah I knew you would find your way back to the butt hurt judo issue. First telling you I am a 2 time national champ and then not providing proof is not inconsistent. Inconsistent would be me telling you I am and then telling you I am not...do you need me to provide you a link to the definition of inconsistent?
I have addressed your stupidity on racism in both parties plenty of times. Both parties have racists, one party doesnt have a lock on racism.
-
What am I supposedly running away from now? Something to do with how I need to know how "reps" (republicans?) were going to alleviate job lock? Why would I need to know that?; If you'll remember, I pointed out that Paul Ryan seemed to think that "job lock" was an issue in 2009 (or so) but that republicans now are trying to act like it's of no concern. What is confusing about this? And why is it some sort of issue for you if I don't have the foggiest about how Ryan hoped address "job lock"?
Here's what happened: After learning that "job lock" was a reason that folks being able to work less or even quit their otherwise unsatisfactory jobs if healthcare wasn't tied to their continued employment, I googled the term ("job lock") and came across a youtube vid of Paul Ryan talking about how onerous he thought job lock was. I thought it was funny how repubs (or at least Ryan, who is a prominent republican) seem to have switched stances in a relatively short period of time. I did not watch enough of the video to find out what he was proposing that could help with job-lock in 2009, though. (Why would I?) End of story.
So, tell me, low-info dude, what did I do wrong according to your kindergarten-level code of political thinking? Did I not use my "gut" enough?
It is relevant b/c if they are alleviating ppl of "job lock" by making things cheaper that isnt the same as alleviating people of "job lock" by taking money from others to support their life style.
You do understand that the govt giving money to someone is a result of them taking it from someone else, RIGHT?
you dont seem to understand the difference between giving people more choices by taking from others to support them and allowing people more choices through making things cheaper in the market place.
Its not switching stances in this case dumb ass, they are two different scenarios and its fucking telling your ignorant ass doesnt understand it.
-
let me address this wall o text deflection in sections...
proprietary in the sense that is it my own process and not anyone elses, would you like me to post a link to the definition of proprietary?
yours is not proprietary b/c you dont form your own opinions you simply parrot libtard talking points...
hahah I knew you would find your way back to the butt hurt judo issue. First telling you I am a 2 time national champ and then not providing proof is not inconsistent. Inconsistent would be me telling you I am and then telling you I am not...do you need me to provide you a link to the definition of inconsistent?
I have addressed your stupidity on racism in both parties plenty of times. Both parties have racists, one party doesnt have a lock on racism.
No, I think I get it now, you use your own home-grown method for looking at the world and for some reason think it's superior to the more analytical approaches of others. Drive on with that, lol -- World gonna smack ya in the mouth for that idiocy one way or another.
Naw, post a definition of "deflection".
You could use your last sentence to show how you avoid any statement whatsoever about which party has more (and worse) racism by saying, "One party doesn't have a lock on racism".
(Props to you, I guess, for NOT saying that it's equal on both sides or that the left is more racist, though.)
Clearly you are bending over backwards to avoid saying what we all know to be true: There is more and worse racism on the right. (Not sure what the big deal is with saying it, though --- Doesn't mean that YOU are racist.)
-
l...
hahah I knew you would find your way back to the butt hurt judo issue.
...
You should know this. It speaks to your lack of credibility.
So anytime the question of "Is Tony a lyin' sack o shit?" then your mysterious judo claims need to be brought up. Sorry, mang.
-
You should know this. It speaks to your lack of credibility.
So anytime the question of "Is Tony a lyin' sack o shit?" then your mysterious judo claims need to be brought up. Sorry, mang.
Tonys argument is sound. Instead of attacking his character debate his premise. This behavior smacks of desperation.
-
It is relevant b/c if they are alleviating ppl of "job lock" by making things cheaper that isnt the same as alleviating people of "job lock" by taking money from others to support their life style.
You do understand that the govt giving money to someone is a result of them taking it from someone else, RIGHT?
you dont seem to understand the difference between giving people more choices by taking from others to support them and allowing people more choices through making things cheaper in the market place.
Its not switching stances in this case dumb ass, they are two different scenarios and its fucking telling your ignorant ass doesnt understand it.
"If they they are making things cheaper..." Is this your way of saying that this is what Ryan was talking about? If so, then acting butt-hurt because I didn't know what Ryan was talking about seems like a silly way to make your point.
And your point isn't so clear anyway -- You do understand that I can point out the hypocrisy of Ryan a few years ago bemoaning "job lock" while now thinking it's not a big deal without endorsing Ryan's solution for the issue, right?
I do understand about the gov't redistributing income. And I accept it as the price we pay for living in the society we do. I think you lack empathy for your fellow man. I can understand it since you apparently grew up as an Asian in Texas where not all folks are as accepting of folks that look different as they are in other places. Sorry for ya.
Lastly, sticking to your guns about how negative it is re: the CBO's sky-is-falling report about it's forecast that "2.5 million jobs will be lost" is a losing battle for you, if you go by what the mainstream (non-Fox) news org's are saying now. I guess when the CBO came out and gave it's explanation about why it wasn't such a bad thing, that convinced some folks that don't share that "proprietary" thinking system you've got going there, ya asian redneck. (Asian redneck -- No wonder you're so confused, lol.)
-
Tonys argument is sound. Instead of attacking his character debate his premise. This behavior smacks of desperation.
Describe Tony's argument, SS4U. State his premise. I'll wait and respond, promise.
-
Describe Tony's argument, SS4U. State his premise. I'll wait and respond, promise.
Are you admitting you need someone to explain it to you?
-
Are you admitting you need someone to explain it to you?
Not at all. I think I understand it just fine.
I'm trying to make sure you're not trolling. (Remember when you said something to the effect of trying to make me upset was your goal?)
So getting a guy who spent some time at Michigan State to restate Tony's poorly-worded point about Ryan shouldn't be hard if you're really paying attention here. Sorry for any inconvenience.
-
Not at all. I think I understand it just fine.
I'm trying to make sure you're not trolling. (Remember when you said something to the effect of trying to make me upset was your goal?)
So getting a guy who spent some time at Michigan State to restate Tony's poorly-worded point about Ryan shouldn't be hard if you're really paying attention here. Sorry for any inconvenience.
You need to step back and think about this issue rationally instead of being so emotional.
-
You need to step back and think about this issue rationally instead of being so emotional.
That's what I thought.
Bye Mr. Troll.
-
That's what I thought.
Bye Mr. Troll.
You are being irrational. You so wound up in your little old lady fantasy you can't see straight. You're a pure ideologue. You buy all the party propaganda hook line and sinker.
-
...
You so wound up in your little old lady fantasy you can't see straight.
...
You accidentally a word there. (So who's wound up? lol)
-
You accidentally a word there. (So who's wound up? lol)
I'm fine. You descend further and further into hysteria
-
...
You descend further and further into hysteria
Oh yeah, you're right.
BTW, looks like you omitted a period there, champ.
Your spelling and grammar is improving, though. Stick with it.
-
Oh yeah, you're right.
BTW, looks like you omitted a period there, champ.
Your spelling and grammar is improving, though. Stick with it.
Weak. Your desperation is obvious.
-
Weak. Your desperation is obvious.
Good move by sticking to posts with a minimum of words.
Less chance of a mistake that way.
Well, I gotta get ready for the gym now.
Arms today and I've missed a couple days because of all the snow so I gotta go (even though I'd really rather just find a UFC stream to watch Mousasi vs Machida).
-
Good move by sticking to posts with a minimum of words.
Less chance of a mistake that way.
Well, I gotta get ready for the gym now.
Arms today and I've missed a couple days because of all the snow so I gotta go (even though I'd really rather just find a UFC stream to watch Mousasi vs Machida).
You're waving the white flag.
-
"If they they are making things cheaper..." Is this your way of saying that this is what Ryan was talking about? If so, then acting butt-hurt because I didn't know what Ryan was talking about seems like a silly way to make your point.
And your point isn't so clear anyway -- You do understand that I can point out the hypocrisy of Ryan a few years ago bemoaning "job lock" while now thinking it's not a big deal without endorsing Ryan's solution for the issue, right?
I do understand about the gov't redistributing income. And I accept it as the price we pay for living in the society we do. I think you lack empathy for your fellow man. I can understand it since you apparently grew up as an Asian in Texas where not all folks are as accepting of folks that look different as they are in other places. Sorry for ya.
Lastly, sticking to your guns about how negative it is re: the CBO's sky-is-falling report about it's forecast that "2.5 million jobs will be lost" is a losing battle for you, if you go by what the mainstream (non-Fox) news org's are saying now. I guess when the CBO came out and gave it's explanation about why it wasn't such a bad thing, that convinced some folks that don't share that "proprietary" thinking system you've got going there, ya asian redneck. (Asian redneck -- No wonder you're so confused, lol.)
ahhh hahah now your resort to racist attacks...quite tolerant and liberal of you my friend ;)
my point was to ask you the details which you obviously dont know and cant seem to get passed your bias to see why they would be important.
you do understand that being against reducing job lock on the peoples dime and reducing job lock as a result of cheaper insurance is not the same thing but you dont see why its important?
LMFAO are you fucking serious dumb ass???
-
ahhh hahah now your resort to racist attacks...quite tolerant and liberal of you my friend ;)
my point was to ask you the details which you obviously dont know and cant seem to get passed your bias to see why they would be important.
you do understand that being against reducing job lock on the peoples dime and reducing job lock as a result of cheaper insurance is not the same thing but you dont see why its important?
LMFAO are you fucking serious dumb ass???
It's like they are all reading from the same script. There isn't an independent thinker among the lot of them.
-
It's like they are all reading from the same script. There isn't an independent thinker among the lot of them.
thats exactly what it is, kore saw a story from the media about job lock and republicans and parroted the same stupidity here.
He didnt and hasnt done any research on it, he didnt think about what details of the story might be important...He just restated the same party line.
-
ahhh hahah now your resort to racist attacks...quite tolerant and liberal of you my friend ;)
my point was to ask you the details which you obviously dont know and cant seem to get passed your bias to see why they would be important.
you do understand that being against reducing job lock on the peoples dime and reducing job lock as a result of cheaper insurance is not the same thing but you dont see why its important?
LMFAO are you fucking serious dumb ass???
Tony, you are an idiot. Just because I usually vote dem does not mean that you'd be able to observe me IRL and say, "Oh, he's a liberal". Most people that I know with whom I haven't talked politics assume I'm a libertarian at best (or maybe just an asshole). I'm the kind of dude who is NOT tolerant on a personal level and have no problem getting into it with strangers on the street. (I just realize you can't run a country like that, so I vote the way I do.) It's a portagee thang, you wouldn't understand it, lol.
Re: Ryan's seemingly inconsistent positions about "job lock", tell me if this sums up your position:
Ryan's positions (against joblock before, no problem with it now) aren't inconsistent because it's actually the causes of each that are the deciding factor for him when it comes to whether he has an issue with job lock or not. Amirite?
Well, goody for Paul Ryan but the real question wasn't about him much. Remember the context in which I mentioned Paul Ryan and job lock? I told someone (you? Dario?) to google Paul Ryan and Job lock because the discussion concerned the CBO's finding that the equivalent to 2.5 (maybe it was 2.3?) million jobs wouldn't be worked because workers would choose to take time to do other things since it would be in their financial interest to do so. I had read about job lock (whereby folks would stay in unsatisfactory jobs only because they were concerned that they'd otherwise have no health insurance but was too lazy to describe it in writing so I looked for a video that would describe the issue and found the Paul Ryan one. So I told whomever to google it. Primarily to bring up the job lock reason for why it wasn't a bad thing that folks were afraid to quit their jobs with only a side goal of pointing out the seeming hypocrisy of Paul Ryan.
BTW, if you tell me how important it is. What percentage of GDP will those "lost" 2.5 million jobs represent?
(This is a thing that bugs me about many conservatives -- You guys don't have much perspective -- A welfare "queen" who might defraud the gov't out of, what?, 25 grand gets every bit as much of your ire (if not more) than, say, defense contractors who fleece the government of millions of dollars at a time.
The moneyed interests in this country have historically tried to turn the comparatively disadvantaged groups against each other (so that the unwashed masses don't unite and revolt) and it's sad that that shit still seems to be working.
Not with me, though, sister.
Anyway, was it at all any tougher than usual to grow up Japanese in Texas?
BTW, I love most non-Indian Asians, generally.
-
Tony, you are an idiot. Just because I usually vote dem does not mean that you'd be able to observe me IRL and say, "Oh, he's a liberal". Most people that I know with whom I haven't talked politics assume I'm a libertarian at best (or maybe just an asshole). I'm the kind of dude who is NOT tolerant on a personal level and have no problem getting into it with strangers on the street. (I just realize you can't run a country like that, so I vote the way I do.) It's a portagee thang, you wouldn't understand it, lol.
Re: Ryan's seemingly inconsistent positions about "job lock", tell me if this sums up your position:
Ryan's positions (against joblock before, no problem with it now) aren't inconsistent because it's actually the causes of each that are the deciding factor for him when it comes to whether he has an issue with job lock or not. Amirite?
Well, goody for Paul Ryan but the real question wasn't about him much. Remember the context in which I mentioned Paul Ryan and job lock? I told someone (you? Dario?) to google Paul Ryan and Job lock because the discussion concerned the CBO's finding that the equivalent to 2.5 (maybe it was 2.3?) million jobs wouldn't be worked because workers would choose to take time to do other things since it would be in their financial interest to do so. I had read about job lock (whereby folks would stay in unsatisfactory jobs only because they were concerned that they'd otherwise have no health insurance but was too lazy to describe it in writing so I looked for a video that would describe the issue and found the Paul Ryan one. So I told whomever to google it. Primarily to bring up the job lock reason for why it wasn't a bad thing that folks were afraid to quit their jobs with only a side goal of pointing out the seeming hypocrisy of Paul Ryan.
BTW, if you tell me how important it is. What percentage of GDP will those "lost" 2.5 million jobs represent?
(This is a thing that bugs me about many conservatives -- You guys don't have much perspective -- A welfare "queen" who might defraud the gov't out of, what?, 25 grand gets every bit as much of your ire (if not more) than, say, defense contractors who fleece the government of millions of dollars at a time.
The moneyed interests in this country have historically tried to turn the comparatively disadvantaged groups against each other (so that the unwashed masses don't unite and revolt) and it's sad that that shit still seems to be working.
Not with me, though, sister.
Anyway, was it at all any tougher than usual to grow up Japanese in Texas?
BTW, I love most non-Indian Asians, generally.
the more you deflect the more you type ::)
again being against relieving ppl of job lock through subsidizing their living expense and being for relieving ppl of job lock through making the expenses cheaper IS NOT INCONSISTENT DUMB ASS!!!
I have asked you numerous times to tell me how ryans plan was going to relieve people of job lock and you have not been able to answer...
I dont know how tough it is for the usual person to grow up in Texas so I can only speak for myself and say it wasnt tough at all. You like most libtards seem to have this preconcieved notion of Texas where there is nothing but racist cowboys running around shooting each other.
where did you grow up?
-
the more you deflect the more you type ::)
again being against relieving ppl of job lock through subsidizing their living expense and being for relieving ppl of job lock through making the expenses cheaper IS NOT INCONSISTENT DUMB ASS!!!
I have asked you numerous times to tell me how ryans plan was going to relieve people of job lock and you have not been able to answer...
I dont know how tough it is for the usual person to grow up in Texas so I can only speak for myself and say it wasnt tough at all. You like most libtards seem to have this preconcieved notion of Texas where there is nothing but racist cowboys running around shooting each other.
where did you grow up?
Deflection? Negress, I have addressed all your questions as far as I know. Honest Injun.
Growing up I split time between Sacramento and the SF Bay Area, CA.
You might be right that the "preconceived notions" about life in Texas might be the result of ignorance...or you might just not be aware of how different some things there are since you grew up there. Some combination of those two factors, probably. For instance, your cops suuuuck.
-
Deflection? Negress, I have addressed all your questions as far as I know. Honest Injun.
Growing up I split time between Sacramento and the SF Bay Area, CA.
You might be right that the "preconceived notions" about life in Texas might be the result of ignorance...or you might just not be aware of how different some things there are since you grew up there. Some combination of those two factors, probably. For instance, your cops suuuuck.
HAVE YOU NOW??? so you have told us how ryan intended to relieve people of Job lock? I must have missed it, please bump that post...
Nah bud it really is just about your ignorance. I have traveled all over this country when doing Judo and playing other sports including San Fran, San Diego, Fresno etc in California and tons of other cities and states and trust me...its your ignorance...
I agree our cops suck but thats pretty universal so...