Prev: From Krugman's op-ed
Next: Toyota Recalls Defective Engines in Lexus GS350, GS450h, GS460, IS350, LS460, LS600h, LS600hL
From: edspyhill01 on 6 Jul 2010 22:28
On Jul 6, 8:38 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:12:48 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 3:41 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
> >> While filing a lawsuit against Arizona trying to keep illegals out of
> >> their state, the DOJ dropped a lawsuit again the New Black Panthers for
> >> trying to keep voters out of the polls.
>
> >> The person persuing the case was told to drop it, coming from the
> >> "highest authority".
>
> > I told you numerous times the Panthers were there to stop the white- assed
> > republicans from challenging black voters. I guarantee you not one black
> > person or any white people registered in that district felt intimidated.
> > Remember what the repugnicans did in Florida and many other states,
> > challenging every black voter. In Philly they were ready for you guys.
> > Deal with it.
>
> You're kidding, right?

Not one bit.
From: edspyhill01 on 7 Jul 2010 08:22
On Jul 7, 6:52 am, "dbu," <nos...(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d3QYn.16947$f_3.16...(a)newsfe17.iad>,
>
>  "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:
> > What if he's half correct, especially about what went on in Florida? I've
> > heard about that and so have you.
>
> > Now, tell me you don't recall hearing about the antics in Florida. Go ahead.
> > I need to laugh at a mook tonight. You're elected.
>
> twit, tell us about how algore and the dnc thugs tried to steal the
> election from GWB.  Come on twit tell us.
> --

Oh, you must be talking about the Supreme court that stopped Florida
from doing a state-wide recount, said Boy George won the election,
then put a caveat in the written decision that this was a one-time
decision and not precedent. And the voting machines that registered a
vote for Boy George no matter who you voted for. You prove my point
that you take the low information path and you never have more than
20% of the facts.
From: edspyhill01 on 7 Jul 2010 11:39
On Jul 7, 11:11 am, "dbu," <nos...(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <4d82c201-eafb-48f3-8b84-3732b2a5a...(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  edspyhill01 <edspyhil...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 6:52 am, "dbu," <nos...(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <d3QYn.16947$f_3.16...(a)newsfe17.iad>,
>
> > >  "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:
> > > > What if he's half correct, especially about what went on in Florida? I've
> > > > heard about that and so have you.
>
> > > > Now, tell me you don't recall hearing about the antics in Florida. Go
> > > > ahead.
> > > > I need to laugh at a mook tonight. You're elected.
>
> > > twit, tell us about how algore and the dnc thugs tried to steal the
> > > election from GWB.  Come on twit tell us.
> > > --
>
> > Oh, you must be talking about the Supreme court that stopped Florida
> > from doing a state-wide recount, said Boy George won the election,
> > then put a caveat in the written decision that this was a one-time
> > decision and not precedent.  And the voting machines that registered a
> > vote for Boy George no matter who you voted for.  You prove my point
> > that you take the low information path and you never have more than
> > 20% of the facts.
>
> Listen here silly little one, algore wanted to cherry pick key counties
> that would offer him the best chance to win.  THATS what its about.  
>
> Thankfully the court said take a hike.
> --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And where in the Constitution does it permit the Supreme Court to
decide an election????? You are lost again.
From: Jeff Strickland on 7 Jul 2010 12:25

"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:d3QYn.16947$f_3.16076(a)newsfe17.iad...
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:4c33cc94$0$1042$afc38c87(a)read01.usenet4all.se...
>> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:12:48 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 6, 3:41 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote:
>>>> While filing a lawsuit against Arizona trying to keep illegals out of
>>>> their state, the DOJ dropped a lawsuit again the New Black Panthers for
>>>> trying to keep voters out of the polls.
>>>>
>>>> The person persuing the case was told to drop it, coming from the
>>>> "highest authority".
>>>
>>> I told you numerous times the Panthers were there to stop the white-
>>> assed
>>> republicans from challenging black voters. I guarantee you not one
>>> black
>>> person or any white people registered in that district felt intimidated.
>>> Remember what the repugnicans did in Florida and many other states,
>>> challenging every black voter. In Philly they were ready for you guys.
>>> Deal with it.
>>
>>
>> You're kidding, right?
>>
>
>
> What if he's half correct, especially about what went on in Florida? I've
> heard about that and so have you.
>
> Now, tell me you don't recall hearing about the antics in Florida. Go
> ahead. I need to laugh at a mook tonight. You're elected.
>

You're throwing up a red herring.

This is not about challenging the propriety of votes that were already cast
by people that ought not have cast them because they didn't live in the
precinct where they voted, or were ex-felons that are not allowed to vote,
or are shown on the coroner's report as being dead and logically should not
have the capacity to vote. This is about the government -- the Federal
Government, no less -- going after a State for doing what the federal
government is not willing to do, and not going after blatant violations of
voter's rights.

The Feds are tasked with border security and upholding voter rights. They do
neither. The Florida case that has your panties in a bunch is about the Feds
actually doing their job -- actually, it was the State doing it's job but
for the purpose of this discussion, the distinction is not very important.

We are shown, again, that the Obama Administration has no interest in the
Rule of Law, and only has interest in pursuing it's own agenda without
regard for public opinion. A sidebar to the topic is the media response that
tends to support Mr. Obama at every turn instead of asking the simple
question, "What, are you stupid?!"

Americans overwhelmingly reject ObamaCare, yet Obama pushed it through.
Americans overwhelmingly support the right of all voters to vote, yet Obama
seems to accept the idea that thugs can stand on the door step and block
voters from entering the polling place. Americans overwhelmingly support
Arizona's Anti Illegal Immigrant Law, yet Obama is suing to block it AND
he's using false pretenses in his argument.

He says that the Feds are alone in enacting immigration policy, yet Arizona
is not enacting anything, it's only enforcing the policy that the feds have
already enacted but do not enforce. There is nothing in Arizona's law that's
not already in federal law, and therefore federal policy. Nothing.

Resident aliens, and lawful visitors are REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to carry a
Green Card or the Visitor's Visa AT ALL TIMES, so Arizona is not requiring
anything of them that's not already required by federal policy. Arizona is
not setting the policy for passing out green cards and visitor visas,
therefore it is not usurping federal policy. Border Patrol agents already
ask for green cards and visitor visas from persons it detains for whatever
reason it chooses to detain them, so Arizona is not setting policy for when
these documents must be presented.

The heart of the federal lawsuit is that Arizona law _might_ lead to
profiling. Maybe. Yet the Border Patrol agents are already allowed to
profile when they make stops of alien visitors, legal or illegal, and
Arizona's law specifically prohibits profiling. When someone believes that
Arizona profiled them, they can file a lawsuit alleging as much. ANY law can
be applied racially, and for the federal government to suggest that
something wrong might possibly happen at some point down the road should
therefore not be allowed to go into law is ludicrous. All laws get enacted
then challenged when wrongly applied. The Obama Administration is
pre-emptively challenging the wrongly applied law before it is wrongly
applied.

Theoretically, Arizona could go for decades and never apply the law wrongly,
and the federal government's suit of today would never see the light of day.

The federal government should wait for the law to be wrongly applied then
side with the person that is impacted. That's the way it works.





From: JoeSpareBedroom on 7 Jul 2010 12:50
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i129t6$44f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...

>
> You're throwing up a red herring.
>


"Please. I'm begging you - don't make me think about anything more complex
than brushing my teeth."
- Jeff Strickland


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: From Krugman's op-ed
Next: Toyota Recalls Defective Engines in Lexus GS350, GS450h, GS460, IS350, LS460, LS600h, LS600hL