snowbear37 Loc: MA.

"Holder to Challenge States' V****g Rights Laws

The Obama administration announced Thursday that it will attempt an aggressive end-run around the Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down a key part of the V****g Rights Act, Politico reports. In a speech before the National Urban League in Philadelphia, The New York Times reports Attorney General Eric Holder indicated that the court motion was most likely just an opening salvo in a new Obama administration strategy to try to reimpose "preclearance" requirements in parts of the country that have a history of discriminating against minority v**ers. In the coming weeks, according to the Washington Post, Holder is expected to announce that the Justice Department intends to move under other sections of the V****g Rights Act to prevent states from implementing certain laws, including v**er identification requirements. Texas Republicans hammered the Obama administration's push to block their state's new v****g laws, arguing the president was singling out the Lone Star State. The Hill reports lawmakers say Thursday's surprise move by Holder wastes taxpayer dollars and defies basic Constitutional checks and balances."

It never ends with these people!

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Thank God. V****g is a right. The attempts by Republicans to limit the right to v**e in states that they control is un-American. In N. Carolina, the Democratic Party received half the v**es and are outnumbered in the legislature by a 2 to 1 margin in the house and senate via jerrymandering.

Only people who support tyranny would think it fair to ignore the concerns of half the population of a state.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

the only people the republicans are trying to restrict are the dead that keep v****g dumbocrap and all the illiterate that want to v**e seven or eight times

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, alex: You left out 20 million illegal Mexican invaders who agreed to v**e dumbocrap in exchange for their food stamp welfare "Vision" cards.

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

V****g is a right when it is done right! V****g more than once, v****g after you're dead, and v****g as an i*****l i*******t is not a right! People who support tyranny want v**es from anywhere they can get them, legally and illegally. Showing ID to v**e should be a law in this country after all the fraud that was discovered after obummer's re-e******n.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, snowbear37: Hey snowbear, there are only about 20 million undocumented illegal Mexican invaders who are available to v**e through motor v**er laws. Just sign up for a drivers license that can't ask about your nationality, and be signed up on a v***r r**********n form on the dimbocrap ticket in exchange for your free food stamp "Vision" card on the basis of your drivers license, and v**e dimbocrap in the next e******n.
Well, how about a tit-for-tat. I saw a couple dozen or more maggots crawling on dog food in my neighbors back yard dog food bowl the other day. One of them even flashed his teeth at me! Why don't we apply for a drivers license for them and then register them to v**e republican in the next e******n alia, Kathleen Sebelius' motor v**er law in Kansas. We only have 11,000 undocumented v**er application requests presently on file in Kansas. Why not 11,000 maggot v**er application requests as a set off. I don't know, I'm just askin. Seems just and fair to me. What say you.

Ricktloml

The only people who are against v**er ID laws are those who want to c***t. We know that Obama won in all states that don't have laws, not to mention winning with more than 100% of the v**e. Obama, the Democrats, and their collaborative media, are the most corrupt group of people to ever exist

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, Ricktloml: You got that right pard. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

OffGrid9 Loc: off-grid, down in a canyon, mostly

First: In regard to the intent of v**er ID, you're confused. V****g is only a right of American citizens who have not committed felonies and thus lost their right to v**e. The drive to require identification as a prerequisite to v****g is not an attempt to limit the right of American citizens to v**e, be they Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, latino, black, caucasian, asian, male, female, homosexual, or of indeterminate sexual persuasion. PERIOD. It AIN'T a limit on any citizen. But it definitely IS an attempt to prevent non-citizens, dead citizens, and criminals from v****g. So...what's your beef? Are you in favor of allowing non-citizens, dead citizens, and criminals to v**e? Because it turns out that these types of v**ers usually v**e a straight Democratic ticket.

Second, in regard to the practice of jerrymandering, once again, you're confused. You do have a point, the practice of jerrymandering skews the results of e******ns. Here in Washington state, where Democrats have controlled state politics for decades, jerrymandering by Democrats has worked the opposite of what you describe in NC. It's archaic and wrong, but it isn't just Republicans who do it. But you know, whether its the practice of jerrymandering that you h**e, or the e*******l college, you have to realize that we are not a direct democracy. Although we use the model of a REPRESENTATIVE democracy for v****g purposes, we aren't a representative democracy, either. We are a republic, not a democracy. For a quick primer on the difference, try [ www.tmra2.org/images/democracyvsrepublic.pdf ]. It will open your eyes. Maybe you could then read the Declaration of Independence, and understand why it NEVER uses the word "democracy".

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

CrazyHorse, You know as well as I do that if we did that, there were be a hue and cry from the dumbocrats the likes of which we've never seen, crying about fraud, and corruption in the Republican Party! The media would have a field day! The story would be on the front pages of newspapers for months! It would be deemed "unfair practices by obummer and crew! It would be considered "using the poor 'undocumented' immigrants" to our advantage! Just sayin.

saved

POPULACE SHOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO COUNT AND ALL SHOULD BE COUNTED /V****G THE WAY OUR FOR FARTHERS INTENTED

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Anything to back that up or is this assertion just a convenient falsehood to justify making it harder for people to exercise a basic American right?

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, snowbear37: Sounds like a plan to me. :lol: :thumbup:

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Not confused. Laws already exist to deal with the restrictions of the right to v**e. Here in NC extensive studies have been done and not one case of v***r f***d was cited. So why is the party of small government passing a law for a non-existant issue? I think the Governor of Pennsylvania gave the game away when he stated that his state's law was meant to deliver Pa. to the Republican nominee.

Point 2: I have no issue with the NC Republican party redrawing the v****g districts. In fact, I pretty much supported the Republican analysis that 100 yrs of Dem rule in the state has led to an easy type of good old boy corruption and the state gov't needed some shaking up. On the other hand, they have gone so far to the right that they do not take into account that half the population disagrees with many of the policies enacted. In fact, they were in such a rush to pass any and all of their laws while they had a veto proof majority that no public hearings were held and once some of the implications of their bills were studied the effects were not what the legislation intended.

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

Fraud and corruption have been proven! Therefore this is not a "non-existent" problem. How does one candidate receive more than 100% of a v**e? How do people that have died continue to v**e and remain on the v****g rolls? If you haven't seen anything regarding this problem, you're not paying attention.

Maybe the governor of PA said what he said due to the fact that obummer "just happened" to win all of the states where v**er ID was blocked. It seems like the dems/progs/libs are afraid to attempt to guarantee that the person v****g has a legal right to do so under the laws of the Constitution. Oh, I forgot, they don't believe in the Constitution.