Tyster

To the point where some of the GOP statements minimize or exaggerate some of these claims, I will agree. But the presentation by this author goes as far the other way as those that he is denigrating. He is very dishonest in his assessment.

C*****e c****e exists and it has for billions of years. Does man effect it? Probably to some extent, but if you read this author's analysis he takes the position that it is all man-made. Thus he is lying.

Obamacare a******n position. If the ACA did not cover the procedures he was discussing, then why did the Supreme Court hear arguments on the very subject yesterday? What he is not explaining is that the government is taking the position that as long as the conceived egg hasn't attached itself to the uterus yet, then it isn't a******n. Parsing of words doesn't make the GOP statement false.

He dismisses the comments about the burgeoning debt by twisting them. He even admits that the commenters confused the debt vs. the deficit. The deficit may have decreased, but the debt did blossom. Borrowings are not counted as revenues and only the interest affects the deficit. Lastly, it is the House of Representatives that have the power to spend money, not the President. Each of Obama's budgets have been dead on arrival. He can not take credit for deficit reduction.

There are two sides to every coin. Looking at one side does not make the opposite side a lie.

vernon

he talks to you about openion then gives facts from media matters what a joke

vernon

alternet is a c*******t rag

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

Now to address this bull s**t article "banjojack" has so graciously presented to us. A couple of things stick out about the article, first of all the "operative" word in the title of the article,(Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through V***r F***d), is the word "MAY", indicating that nothing is proved. But more to the point, and the reason the author, of the article, used the word "May" is because of Minnesota Law. Minnesota Law specifically states...


609.165 RESTORATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS; POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.
Subdivision 1. Restoration. When a person has been deprived of civil rights by reason of
conviction of a crime and is thereafter discharged, such discharge shall restore the person to all
civil rights and to full citizenship, with full right to v**e and hold office, the same as if such
conviction had not taken place, and the order of discharge shall so provide.


Pay particular attention to where it says....

"When a person has been deprived of civil rights by reason of
conviction of a crime and is thereafter discharged, such discharge shall restore the person to all
civil rights and to full citizenship, with full right to v**e and hold office..."

I simply had to reiterate that. Now I didn't read where the U.S. News & World report article stated where these so-called felons v**ed from, but if they were "discharged", they were legal v**ers, according to Minnesota law. If they weren't discharged, then that begs the question, who is setting up v****g booths at the state or federal penitentiary? It would seriously aid the author, of this article, to research what the law is, in the state he is reporting on. Obviously different states have different laws, but this is exactly what most Conservatives want, each state to have more autonomy and the federal government to have less. Minnesota chooses to reinstate v****g rights to former convicted felons.


Now veering off the subject, just a tad, Minnesota does not allow for it's former felons, of violent crimes, to possess firearms...

"Subd. 1a. Certain convicted felons ineligible to possess firearms. The order of discharge
must provide that a person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in section
624.712, subdivision 5, is not entitled to ship, t***sport, possess, or receive a firearm for the
remainder of the person's lifetime"...



That last line is a "k**ler", "for the remainder of the person's "LIFETIME", ouch! I think Wayne LaPierre should get on this travesty, immediately. How dare Minnesota restore v****g rights to ex-felons and not restore their Second Amendment rights. :D

CDM Loc: Florida

They have always opposed any method to identify who is pulling the lever. They will even assist you if your dead. What surprises me is how otherwise thinking, responsible Americans just sit and take it. What could possibly be more stupid than the primary Democrat arguments that 'v**er I.D. is racial profiling' and 'v**er I.D. would be difficult or impossible for many isolated or without t***sportation to obtain'? And we accept this s**t without question? When did the states lose the right to States Rights?

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

Awww, "banjojack" seems sincerely hurt. Don't take it personally banjo...uh....er...Loki. Personally I think you were doing a wonderful job, of "Grammar Sheriff". Look you taught me the difference between "delude" and "dilute", I'm a new man since you provided that sagely guidance.

Liberty Tree

Straight from the same old ELWNJ source you use all the time. Nobody but you and your Obama koolade drinking buddies pays any attention to it.

vernon

what i found strange was the fact that they would have a count and it would come up short they would go back to court for another recount and the would come up with another batch of v**es someone had put in their trunk this smell like theft to me.

vernon

[quote=CDM]They have always opposed any method to identify who is pulling the lever. They will even assist you if your dead. What surprises me is how otherwise thinking, responsible Americans just sit and take it. What could possibly be more stupid than the primary Democrat arguments that 'v**er I.D. is racial profiling' and 'v**er I.D. would be difficult or impossible for many isolated or without t***sportation to obtain'? And we accept this s**t without question? When did the states lose the right to States Rights?[/quot

any one convicted of v***r f***d should be put to death,i dont care what party they aligned with.

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

[quote=vernon][quote=CDM]They have always opposed any method to identify who is pulling the lever. They will even assist you if your dead. What surprises me is how otherwise thinking, responsible Americans just sit and take it. What could possibly be more stupid than the primary Democrat arguments that 'v**er I.D. is racial profiling' and 'v**er I.D. would be difficult or impossible for many isolated or without t***sportation to obtain'? And we accept this s**t without question? When did the states lose the right to States Rights?[/quot

any one convicted of v***r f***d should be put to death,i dont care what party they aligned with.[/quote]

The problem we have here in America is the fact that our morals have been eroded to the point there is no such thing as doing what's right it's all about ME and I'll do what ever I can to get what I WANT

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Loki Loc: Georgia

If. If these felons had their v****g rights restored. I suppose you have proof that they did? I didn't think so. The second part of your comment has nothing to do with the subject. Most, if not all states make provision for the restoration of some or all rights of felons after a certain time. Minnesota is hardly unique.
Your calling an article you admit to having not read "bulls**t" is quintessential bulls**t. A snarky, peevish, dips**t who cannot even stay on subject. Who dismisses a nationally recognized publication as "bulls**t" while admitting to not having read it. Peckerhead.

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

Come on banjo...uh...er...Loki, you're smarter than that. Do I have proof? I just showed you the Minnesota law. That is proof, and if you're too stubborn to accept the Minnesota Law, as proof, I can't help you. The article you cited is pure BS. The article is devoid of objectivity and obviously research. And if you refuse to accept Minnesota state law, as proof, then why shouldn't you have to offer proof of the ineligibility, of these v**ers? The same standards should apply to both sides, of the argument. I know no respecting human is going to just accept you or that article, at it's word, without first researching the validity of them. That's why I checked to see exactly what Minnesota Law said about felons v****g. Man give it up, your specious argument concerning "v***r f***d", holds no water. One hint that no "v***r f***d" occurred, concerning felons v****g, is the lack of investigation, (of the charges made, in this article), by either the state or federal officials; and the fact that state and federal authorities know that "felons", upon being discharged, in the state of Minnesota, can "legally" v**e.

Loki Loc: Georgia

You probably won't read this either, but 177 of those "discharged" felons were convicted of v****g illegally. You call my statements, backed up by facts you won't bother to read, specious. You cite a law that does not apply. If these 177 felons had been discharged, as you claim, they would not have been prosecuted and convicted, now, would they?
Peckerhead.



http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-v**e-in-race-won-by-312-b****ts/article/2504163


By the way, oh master of research, felons are not automatically "discharged" on their release from prison. There is usually a period of several years after completion of any parole, after which the felon applies to have his or her civil rights reinstated. You, um, kind of forget that part, slick?

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

You're acting dumber than a rock. When I said I hadn't read the article, I meant it, I hadn't. But you must be smart enough to figure out that after that post, I did read the article.

Something I find amusing is that you probably rant and rave, like most Conservatives, at the "Liberal Media", yet when it comes to supporting your view, the "Liberal Media" is the most trusted source of information.

What I wanted to talk about is the part of your post that I left highlighted. Why do many of you Conservatives do the "answer your own question" thing? Clearly you state...

"I suppose you have proof that they did? I didn't think so..."

Why don't you let me respond? Are you praying I don't have proof? Well, in this case, you would be wrong. What is so difficult to understand? If an individual convicted of a crime and is thereafter discharged, (T***slation-if the individual has done his time, and is released, or is on Parole or Probation), their right to v**e is restored. Meaning that they can v**e "Legally". Maybe you're questioning the Minnesota state law. Perhaps you feel they've made a mistake. Well, in your opinion, that maybe so, but nonetheless, it is the law, no matter what you or the author of that article thinks. Obviously the author of that article is extremely ignorant or he has an agenda. I favor the "agenda" theory.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I favor the "177 felons convicted of v****g illegally." This is not a theory. If, as you maintain with your affected obtuseness, these felons had been discharged, they would not have been convicted of v****g illegally. A felon on parole has no right to v**e, no matter how much you wish it were so. A felon on parole is not "discharged," no matter how many times you maintain otherwise. A felon, once his or her parole is finished, has to apply for a restoration of rights. Said felon is sent a letter attesting to said restoration. THEN they can v**e. I realize how difficult this concept is for you to comprehend, but do try. Peckerhead.