So to Democrats, a nativity scene has no business being displayed in public space. But a painting that shows cops as pigs, gunning down innocent black children, that's worthy of public display.

And they still don't get why the GOP controls the Oval Office, both houses of Congress, a large majority of governorships, and a large majority of state legislatures.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/10/missouri-lawmaker-seeks-to-press-charges-against-rep-over-painting-removal.html

Again get your facts correct Supreme Court has ruled that the government may not display nativity scenes at the entrance to core government buildings (not Democrats )

Shocking the kid won a contest as did everyone else that it is hung next to

its gone unnoticed for about seven months, until officer groups began to complain

So much for the
First Amendment rights of the 18-year-old artist, David Pulphus.

I thought Republicans Loved the Constitution I forgot only where and when it suits Them

So much for the
First Amendment rights of the 18-year-old artist, David Pulphus.



So much for the First Amendment rights of artist Garry Harley.....



http://www.salemnews.com/news/art-or-hate-salem-state-university-shuts-down-controversial-show/article_72d57104-b135-11e6-81a5-a3d6e9159a4e.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again get your facts correct Supreme Court has ruled that the government may not display nativity scenes at the entrance to core government buildings (not Democrats )

Shocking the kid won a contest as did everyone else that it is hung next to

its gone unnoticed for about seven months, until officer groups began to complain

So much for the
First Amendment rights of the 18-year-old artist, David Pulphus.

I thought Republicans Loved the Constitution I forgot only where and when it suits Them

WDMSO, who sues when religion enters the public square in any way? You deny it's liberals?

This artist, of course, has the right to make whatever historically inaccurate horsesh*t art he wants. He has that right. That doesn't mean it must be on display in the US Capital.

My facts were correct - liberals would tend to be OK with depicting cops as kids, but they'd be offended by a nativity scene. Forget the courts, which I never referred to. I am talking about what your side believes.

In 2018, 10 democrat senators are up for re-election in states that rump won. If your side remains this clueless about what the majority of American people believe, they will continue to be irrelevant.

He "won a contest"? The contest was decided by the one person, the congressman, a left wing nut who hates cops and would have picked anything that made cops look bad. Whoop-dee-do.

"I thought Republicans Loved the Constitution '

We do. You show me what part of the constitution is violated by refusing to let that thing hang in the US Capital? If the kid wants to put on an art show on his own dime, fine. That's public property. None of has a constitutional right to display our art in a public place.

As I said, this will help my side and hurt your side. Keep up the good work.

So much for the First Amendment rights of artist Garry Harley.....



http://www.salemnews.com/news/art-or-hate-salem-state-university-shuts-down-controversial-show/article_72d57104-b135-11e6-81a5-a3d6e9159a4e.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Same as above
So much for the
First Amendment rights

WDMSO, who sues when religion enters the public square in any way? You deny it's liberals? Yes the are called ACLU

This artist, of course, has the right to make whatever historically inaccurate horsesh*t art he wants. He has that right. That doesn't mean it must be on display in the US Capital. Why because people dont like it wrong answer where was the outrage 7 months ago

My facts were correct - liberals would tend to be OK with depicting cops as kids, but they'd be offended by a nativity scene. Forget the courts, which I never referred to. I am talking about what your side believes. Forget the law of the land for this but not for 2a rights its not how it works

In 2018, 10 democrat senators are up for re-election in states that rump won. If your side remains this clueless about what the majority of American people believe, they will continue to be irrelevant.

stop telling half truth trump won no majority he won the election
Clinton Trump
Total 65,844,610 62,979,636

He "won a contest"? The contest was decided by the one person, the congressman, a left wing nut who hates cops and would have picked anything that made cops look bad. Whoop-dee-do.

"I thought Republicans Loved the Constitution '

We do. You show me what part of the constitution is violated by refusing to let that thing hang in the US Capital? If the kid wants to put on an art show on his own dime, fine. That's public property. None of has a constitutional right to display our art in a public place.

If i have to show you then you dont understand the constitution

As I said, this will help my side and hurt your side. Keep up the good work. Typical republicans haven't been in the white house in 8 years they win 1 election and talking as if they did something don't count your chickens before they hatch. 22

Same as above
So much for the
First Amendment rights

Not really, The "Same Side of The Aisle" that put up Cops as Pigs painting are the ones that demanded that the KKK painting be removed.

The irony of arguing whether a KKK painting should be removed on a day when someone gets the death penalty for shooting a bunch of African American people while they were in church and a AG is being questioned on his use of calling an AA "boy" and his being questioned on his bringing trumped up voter fraud charges against some AA for helping others submit absenstee votes. Meanwhile we have a Pres Elect who retweeted tweets from the daily stormer only 10 days away from becoming Pres.

The Rep who put it up is an idiot for doing that.

22

"Why because people dont like it "

Because it's based on a lie, and it paints heroes as pigs and murderers. I'd like to see your reaction if I hung a painting at the US Capital, that showed blacks as monkeys who only stop doing drugs long enough to cash welfare checks or rob white people. Because that's roughly the mirror image of that painting. Neither has any business hanging in the US Capital.

"where was the outrage 7 months ago "

Who cares? I got outraged when I first heard about it, which was this week. I'm sorry that I didn't know about it 7 months ago.

"Forget the law of the land "

I never, ever said forget the law of the land. I said it's interesting to me, that liberals are OK with this painting, but not of a nativity scene.

"stop telling half truth "

Now who is wrong on the facts? I'm not just talking about the Oval Office. The GOP controls both houses of Congress, a large majority of state governorships, and a large majority of state legislatures. Go ahead and tell me, is that statement true or false? and 2018 is shaping up to be another landslide for the GOP, look at which senators are up for re-election, and in which states.

Not really, The "Same Side of The Aisle" that put up Cops as Pigs painting are the ones that demanded that the KKK painting be removed.

BINGO.

If the Dems want to pick a fight over this painting, and pick an anti-Semitic nutjob like Keith Elison to head their party, let's see how that plays everywhere other than Hollywood and Manhattan.

9 more days 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By the way, the congressman who insists on hanging this piece of crap, is a guy named William Lacy Clay.

In 2015, here is what the same Mr Lacy said about displaying confederate-themed art in public places in 2015. Back then, here's what he had to say...

"symbols associated with this country’s racist, oppressive past should not be elevated or displayed in public places.”

So if something offends him, it cannot be shown in public. If something offends someone else, tough cookies for them.

Way to have your cake and eat it too, Mr Clay

http://fox2now.com/2015/06/29/congressman-urges-slay-to-take-down-confederate-memorial/

So that guy is representative of all Dems. What do the following say about Reps?

Carl Paladino, a western New York builder, one-time Republican candidate for governor of New York and political ally of President-elect Donald J. Trump, came under fire on Friday for racially offensive comments about President Obama and the first lady, who Mr. Paladino said should be “let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe.”

Mr. Paladino’s comments were published in Artvoice, a weekly Buffalo newspaper. They came in response to an open-ended feature in which local figures were asked about their hopes for 2017.

“Obama catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Herford,” said Mr. Paladino, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010, making an apparent reference to the Hereford cattle breed. He said he hoped the disease killed the president.

Asked what he most wanted to see “go away” in the new year, Mr. Paladino — who has a reputation in New York political and business circles for speaking in an unfiltered manner reminiscent of Mr. Trump’s — answered, “Michelle Obama.”

“I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla,” he said.

Condemnation of the remarks was swift on social media and among elected officials around the state. The local county executive called for Mr. Paladino to immediately resign his post on the Buffalo school board.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who defeated Mr. Paladino in 2010, called the comments “racist, ugly and reprehensible.” He said in a statement that Mr. Paladino had a “long history” of making similar comments and that he had “embarrassed the good people of the state with his latest hate-filled rage.”

Mr. Trump did not personally step to the defense of Mr. Paladino, who served as a New York co-chairman of the president-elect’s campaign and describes himself as a personal friend of Mr. Trump’s. “Carl’s comments are absolutely reprehensible, and they serve no place in our public discourse,” Jessica Ditto, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said.

“I did it to wake people up; I did it to get people’s attention,” he said in the telephone interview. He pointed to a page-long statement, published after the comments were made, in which he outlined his grievances with the Obama administration. “He couldn’t care less about the people,” he said of the president in the statement.




Pamela Ramsey Taylor, the director of Clay County Development Corp. near Charleston, wrote about Melania Trump becoming first lady after Donald Trump won the election. On her Facebook page, Taylor said: “It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House. I’m tired of seeing a Ape in heels.



In October this year, Dan Johnson, a GOP candidate for Kentucky’s state legislature, posted pictures of President Obama and the first lady with ape-like features. Johnson, a Lousiana bishop, also captioned a picture of a baby chimpanzee as being a picture of the president when he was a child.

“It wasn’t meant to be racist. I can tell you that. My history’s good there. I can see how people would be offended in that. I wasn’t trying to offend anybody, but, I think Facebook’s entertaining,” he reportedly said.




West York, Pennsylvania, Mayor Charles Wasko was under scrutiny in September this year for a June post in which he said a picture of a monkey was actually a picture of Michelle Obama. He also captioned a picture of a wagon of orangutans as “moving day at the White House.”



Patrick Rushing, mayor of Airway Heights, Washington, was asked to stepped down for calling the first lady “Gorilla face” on Facebook. “Gorilla face Michelle, can't disagree with that. The woman is not attractive except to monkey man Barack. Check out them ears. LOL,” the mayor posted in July, 2015.

He refused to resign, saying: “I made a mistake. I owned up to my mistake. If I do resign that’s admitting I’m a racist and I’m not.”

“It’s just playful back and forth banter that my friends and I do,” he added.


In 2011, a GOP activist from South Carolina said a gorilla which escaped from a zoo was Michelle Obama’s “ancestor.”

Rusty DePass, also a former chairman of the state election commission, commented on a Facebook post on the animal’s escape from Columbia’s Riverbanks Zoo saying, “I’m sure it’s just one of Michelle’s ancestors — probably harmless.”

He admitted later he was referring to the first lady and apologized for his comment: “I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest.”





Mr. Paladino, in the interview with The Times, said he was “not politically correct,” though he disputed the notion that his comments were racist. Asked why he wanted to see the first lady live with a gorilla in Africa, he paused for a long time, then said: “What’s wrong with that?”

Not really, The "Same Side of The Aisle" that put up Cops as Pigs painting are the ones that demanded that the KKK painting be removed.

seem you confuse Law makers with students

So much for the
First Amendment rights thats my position:btu: in both cases but why should that matter

So that guy is representative of all Dems. What do the following say about Reps?

Carl Paladino, a western New York builder, one-time Republican candidate for governor of New York and political ally of President-elect Donald J. Trump, came under fire on Friday for racially offensive comments about President Obama and the first lady, who Mr. Paladino said should be “let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe.”

Mr. Paladino’s comments were published in Artvoice, a weekly Buffalo newspaper. They came in response to an open-ended feature in which local figures were asked about their hopes for 2017.

“Obama catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Herford,” said Mr. Paladino, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010, making an apparent reference to the Hereford cattle breed. He said he hoped the disease killed the president.

Asked what he most wanted to see “go away” in the new year, Mr. Paladino — who has a reputation in New York political and business circles for speaking in an unfiltered manner reminiscent of Mr. Trump’s — answered, “Michelle Obama.”

“I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla,” he said.

Condemnation of the remarks was swift on social media and among elected officials around the state. The local county executive called for Mr. Paladino to immediately resign his post on the Buffalo school board.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who defeated Mr. Paladino in 2010, called the comments “racist, ugly and reprehensible.” He said in a statement that Mr. Paladino had a “long history” of making similar comments and that he had “embarrassed the good people of the state with his latest hate-filled rage.”

Mr. Trump did not personally step to the defense of Mr. Paladino, who served as a New York co-chairman of the president-elect’s campaign and describes himself as a personal friend of Mr. Trump’s. “Carl’s comments are absolutely reprehensible, and they serve no place in our public discourse,” Jessica Ditto, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said.

“I did it to wake people up; I did it to get people’s attention,” he said in the telephone interview. He pointed to a page-long statement, published after the comments were made, in which he outlined his grievances with the Obama administration. “He couldn’t care less about the people,” he said of the president in the statement.




Pamela Ramsey Taylor, the director of Clay County Development Corp. near Charleston, wrote about Melania Trump becoming first lady after Donald Trump won the election. On her Facebook page, Taylor said: “It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House. I’m tired of seeing a Ape in heels.



In October this year, Dan Johnson, a GOP candidate for Kentucky’s state legislature, posted pictures of President Obama and the first lady with ape-like features. Johnson, a Lousiana bishop, also captioned a picture of a baby chimpanzee as being a picture of the president when he was a child.

“It wasn’t meant to be racist. I can tell you that. My history’s good there. I can see how people would be offended in that. I wasn’t trying to offend anybody, but, I think Facebook’s entertaining,” he reportedly said.




West York, Pennsylvania, Mayor Charles Wasko was under scrutiny in September this year for a June post in which he said a picture of a monkey was actually a picture of Michelle Obama. He also captioned a picture of a wagon of orangutans as “moving day at the White House.”



Patrick Rushing, mayor of Airway Heights, Washington, was asked to stepped down for calling the first lady “Gorilla face” on Facebook. “Gorilla face Michelle, can't disagree with that. The woman is not attractive except to monkey man Barack. Check out them ears. LOL,” the mayor posted in July, 2015.

He refused to resign, saying: “I made a mistake. I owned up to my mistake. If I do resign that’s admitting I’m a racist and I’m not.”

“It’s just playful back and forth banter that my friends and I do,” he added.


In 2011, a GOP activist from South Carolina said a gorilla which escaped from a zoo was Michelle Obama’s “ancestor.”

Rusty DePass, also a former chairman of the state election commission, commented on a Facebook post on the animal’s escape from Columbia’s Riverbanks Zoo saying, “I’m sure it’s just one of Michelle’s ancestors — probably harmless.”

He admitted later he was referring to the first lady and apologized for his comment: “I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest.”





Mr. Paladino, in the interview with The Times, said he was “not politically correct,” though he disputed the notion that his comments were racist. Asked why he wanted to see the first lady live with a gorilla in Africa, he paused for a long time, then said: “What’s wrong with that?”

"So that guy is representative of all Dems"

No, he's not. But as I keep saying to you every time you bring this up, the 2 parties do have tendencies on some policy issues, would you agree?

Paul, here is the difference, and if I am wrong, please tell us specifically where I am wrong, OK?

Republicans, as a group, vehemently denounce racism, in all of its forms (with some rare, repugnant exceptions). Now, which influential Democrats, have denounced Black Lives Matter, or Al Sharpton?

The Christian right led the charge against slavery, and we led the charge against segregation, and in my opinion, our stated policies would be far more productive at lifting blacks out of poverty than the liberal platform (which is crippling blacks by making them addicted to welfare, telling them that nothing is their fault, and incentivizing fatherlessness...those things have just worked great in our big cities, haven't they)

"Pamela Ramsey Taylor, the director of Clay County Development Corp. near Charleston,"

You are comparing this person, who no one has ever heard of, to a United States Congressman?

seem you confuse Law makers with students


Shouldn't we hold Law Makers to a higher Standard?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your side is saying that Jeff Sessions is a racist because he said boy "which is offensive", an dbecause he brought charges against some activists who were cleared, with no sanctions filed against Mr Sessions, correct?

Also, when he was a prosecutor, Mr Sessions secured a death penalty against the head of the KKK in his state. So if he's a racist, he's not very good at it, is he? My senator, Richard Blumenthal, asked Mr Sessions today if he had ever been honored by the KKK. He had no evidence that Sessions had ever been so honored, naturally, he just wanted to make the accusation.

"Why because people dont like it " who are we ?? some find it distasteful other could careless and Ive been in Law enforcement for 29years not going to cry about a painting

Because it's based on a lie, and it paints heroes as pigs and murderers. I'd like to see your reaction if I hung a painting at the US Capital, that showed blacks as monkeys who only stop doing drugs long enough to cash welfare checks or rob white people. Because that's roughly the mirror image of that painting. Neither has any business hanging in the US Capital.

Some police are heroes and some are murderers .. you clearly dont the understand the image of a cop is not about a White or Black person its about the institution ..your example above in no way mirrors the other painting yours is only about race

"where was the outrage 7 months ago "

Who cares? I got outraged when I first heard about it, which was this week. I'm sorry that I didn't know about it 7 months ago.

I care its another manufactured outrage, a stunt that was sent to your inbox and you ran with it .

"Forget the law of the land
I never, ever said forget the law of the land. I said it's interesting to me, that liberals are OK with this painting, but not of a nativity scene.

tthe 2 are not the same but keep thinking they are and only liberals hate nativity scene's the high court have ruled you should read the law Nativity scenes are not banned or hated http://www.pewforum.org/files/2007/06/religious-displays.pdfthe


"stop telling half truth " majority of American people believe see you think that to be true based the same thing happen 8 year ago its not earth shattering

Now who is wrong on the facts? I'm not just talking about the Oval Office. The GOP controls both houses of Congress, a large majority of state governorships, and a large majority of state legislatures. Go ahead and tell me, is that statement true or false? and 2018 is shaping up to be another landslide for the GOP, look at which senators are up for re-election, and in which states.22

Shouldn't we hold Law Makers to a higher Standard?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems the Republican reps Got there marching orders

Then, shortly before the new year, a conservative website published this headline: “Painting of Cops as Pigs Hung Proudly in US Capitol.” The story was picked up by Fox News and rose the ire of several law enforcement associations across the country.
Now it’s the subject of a tug of war between House Republicans and some Democrats. Republican representatives have been pulling it off the wall, a Democrat who put it back tried to...

instant outrage and both side are off to the Races (not the running kind)

22

"Some police are heroes and some are murderers "

In equal numbers do you think? Is that what you're saying? Or are there 1,000 heroes for every murderer? Look, one police murderer is one too many, but it's beyond rare. Your side uses every violent confrontation, the vast majority of which are justified, to fan the flames of racial division

"I care its another manufactured outrage, a stunt that was sent to your inbox and you ran with it ."

I just heard about it this week. I was outraged. I don't like to see heroes attacked. I can't be offended by something I don't know about.

What the heck do you mean 'manufactured'? Are any of the facts mis-stated? Any at all?

"yours is only about race "

Good lord! And this painting isn't about race?

"same thing happen 8 year ago its not earth shattering "

You need a history lesson. 8 years ago, the Dems controlled DC for sure, but they weren't as dominant in the states as the GOP is now, not remotely close. The Democrats haven't controlled so few elected offices in decades. I am sorry if you hate that fact, but it's still a fact.

The most un-popular candidate ever, kicked the crap out of an icon of the other party. You don't seem to think that's all that noteworthy, and the Democrats seem to agree with you, based on what they are advocating (Keith Elison as head of the DNC).

Time will tell. 2 years after Obama was first elected, the Dems got creamed in the 2010 midterms. Let's see what happens in 2018.

9 more days 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I dont hold out much hope that day 10 11 or the next 1460 days are going to be any better.. I hope I am wrong

I dont hold out much hope that day 10 11 or the next 1460 days are going to be any better.. I hope I am wrong

His personality would give any sane person, reason to worry. Your statement that you hope you are wrong, is more supportive of him, than I was of Obama, I give you credit for that.

"So that guy is representative of all Dems"

No, he's not. I'm confused bc the heading of this post is .........But as I keep saying to you every time you bring this up, the 2 parties do have tendencies on some policy issues, would you agree?They certainly do but you pick the worse of what you see (although this was all over fox news) and apply it to all Dems. When I use the exact same logic (although I clearly don't believe it) you always try coming back with "here is the difference"

Paul, here is the difference, and if I am wrong, please tell us specifically where I am wrong, OK?

Republicans, as a group, vehemently denounce racism,no they don't, I gave you examples of a Rep. in office who made racist comments. ?

Seems like you're be hypocritical.

Seems like you're be hypocritical.

"no they don't, I gave you examples of a Rep. in office who made racist comments"

I said (and you ignored) that leaders of the GOP consistently reject racist comments at every opportunity.

Influential Democrats, on the other hand, embrace Black Lives Matter and Al Sharpton. To say nothing of their policy positions which (either by accident or design, I don't know for sure) are irrefutably causing a cultural and economic apocalypse in the black community. Yet Democrats refuse to accept the empirical evidence, and keep calling for the same programs, which keep pushing blacks deeper and deeper into the abyss.

"you always try coming back with "here is the difference"

Because there is a difference. Republicans, as a group, hate racism. Democrats embrace racial tensions (evidenced by their love of Black Lives Matter and Al Sharpton) because it motivates their base. If a few innocent bystanders need to get murdered at Al Sharpton rallies, or if some cops need to be assassinated by BLM devotees, that doesn't stop Democrats at the top from spouting the same crap. Democrats never stop playing the race card.

They don't hate racism, whether it is sessions calling someone boy or palodino, who ran for gov. on the Rep. ticket, there is a long history of racism.

Why is it that the KKK and the neo nazis celebrated Trump's win?

I guess Reps. don't "hate racism as a group".iPhone/Mobile device[/i][/size]

They don't hate racism, whether it is sessions calling someone boy or palodino, who ran for gov. on the Rep. ticket, there is a long history of racism.

Why is it that the KKK and the neo nazis celebrated Trump's win?

I guess Reps. don't "hate racism as a group".iPhone/Mobile device[/i][/size]

Sessions, when he was a district attorney, got a death penalty verdict against the head of the KKK in his state. As I said, if he is a racist, he's not a very good racist. He should have to explain his use of the word "boy". But he's from, the south, Arkansas, right?.

OK, a guy who ran unsuccessfully for governor, is representative of the party. A guy no one knows.

"Why is it that the KKK and the neo nazis celebrated Trump's win?"

For the same reason that the Communist party endorsed Hilary. Communism is responsible for tens of millions of murders in the last several decades.

Paul, I am talking about the actions, and the stated beliefs, of the leadership of each of the 2 parties. Obama loves Al Sharpton and respects Black Lives Matter. You cannot compare that to a Republican dog catcher of a small town in North Dakota.

They don't hate racism, ".iPhone/Mobile device[/i][/size]

Let's look at the candidates that ran for the Republican nomination?

Ben Carson
Bobbby Jindal
Marco Rubio
Ted Cruz

Yep, it's a party dominated by white supremacists, clearly.

4 doesn't indicate that a group isn't racist or is. Obviously the Russian communist party (where there any communist ever really any in the US?) likes the Dems. as they broke into the servers to steal emails which the Reps. used to defame the Dems candidate. So who exactly did the Russians want to help - Clinton or Trump with that?

I haven't read anything about Sharpton in a few years.

4 doesn't indicate that a group isn't racist or is. Obviously the Russian communist party (where there any communist ever really any in the US?) likes the Dems. as they broke into the servers to steal emails which the Reps. used to defame the Dems candidate. So who exactly did the Russians want to help - Clinton or Trump with that?

I haven't read anything about Sharpton in a few years.

"4 doesn't indicate that a group isn't racist or is."

Oh, I see. What's the magic number, and who gets to determine what the magic number is? You?

How about this for proof that the GOP isn't racist. Republicans see what's happening to blacks in the cities, and we say "these people deserve better, we have to try something different". Democrats see what's happening in the cities, and propose more of the same.

"Obviously the Russian communist party"

Sorry, you asked why the KKK likes the GOP. My response - that the American communists - supported Hilary, is irrefutable fact. Black Lives Matter also likes the Democrats, and they are responsible for the assassinations of perfectly innocent police officers. Paul, if you want to judge a party by the caliber of the lunatics on either side, we will both lose. There are kooks. The difference is, the leadership of my party denounces the hatemongers. The leadership of the Democratic party denounces white hatemongers, but embraces black hatemongers, because they want to solidify that voting block. Al Sharpton has been to Obama's Oval Office something like 70 times. No Republican President will kiss his ring like that, we have no use for the guy.

You can dance around that all you want, but what you can't do, is make it wrong.

"4 doesn't indicate that a group isn't racist or is."

Oh, I see. What's the magic number, and who gets to determine what the magic number is? You? I don't know maybe 1 bc when you get angry with what 1 Dem does you start a thread and say "look at how sleazy the Dems are". So I guess the # is 1

How about this for proof that the GOP isn't racist. Should we again discuss how the GOP is constantly trying to impose rules on voting (that aren't in the const.) that harm minorities? Republicans see what's happening to blacks in the cities, and we say "these people deserve better, we have to try something different". Democrats see what's happening in the cities, and propose more of the same.Right, trying to provide a floor of help for someone is holding them down. We have read that constantly here.

"Obviously the Russian communist party"

Sorry, you asked why the KKK likes the GOP. No, you ducked the question by stating it is the same reason the communists supported the Dems. I pointed out infact the Communists (Russians) clearly supported the Reps. I don't know how many American communists there are but I can bet a weeks pay that it is far fewer than the KKK.My response - that the American communists - supported Hilary, is irrefutable fact. Black Lives Matter also likes the Democrats, and they are responsible for the assassinations of perfectly innocent police officers. Paul, if you want to judge a party by the caliber of the lunatics on either side, we will both lose. Isn't that what you do constantly and when you do I point out that there are kooks on both sides. There are kooks. The difference is, the leadership of my party denounces the hatemongers. The leadership of the Democratic party denounces white hatemongers, but embraces black hatemongers, because they want to solidify that voting block. Al Sharpton has been to Obama's Oval Office something like 70 times. No Republican President will kiss his ring like that, we have no use for the guy.Obama met with him bc he speaks for a large black pop. There are no policies that Sharpton wants that gets proposed other than things a compassionate country should have - like food stamps for poor or preschool funding, etc.

You can dance around that all you want, but what you can't do, is make it wrong.

So how long do we have to do this -1 day, 2 days, 3 days? And then when we are done, how long until something else gets you angry and you start the same thing again?

Should we again discuss how the GOP is constantly trying to impose rules on voting (that aren't in the const.)

Actually, Paul, it is in the Constitution. Being "in the Constitution" does not mean that it is actually, verbatim, listed there. The Constitution mostly limits what government can do within a small list of broad categories. Anything outside of those categories is prohibited to government abridgement.

Voting, the right for citizens to vote is assumed by the nature of the form of government instituted. It does not fall into any constitutional category of government power, except to arrange times and places as well as the qualifications of those running for office. But it is assumed, by Amendments, to have powers of regulation in that it is prohibited from certain types of regulation. Thereby assuming that it can regulate voting except in those Amended circumstances.

There is no prohibition in the Constitution against government regulation of the voting process except for the prohibition against doing so by "sex" (19th Amendment), or "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment), or by the age of anyone over 18 (26th Amendment).

If there is no reference to any of those prohibitions, then government is not prohibited from imposing voting rules. Of course, there is that notion that a Judge can "interpret" that a regulation actually denies the vote to any of those categories, even if they are not mentioned in the regulation. But that notion can be extended infinitum to include endless ways that someone could be denied the vote. However, if the regulation applies to all categories of citizens, it would be judicial activism to strike it down on the basis of a judges opinion of what harm the regulation might incur to a particular category. That does occur. But in the strictest sense, such personal interpretation is not constitutional. It is actually destructive of the Constitution in that it introduces precedent for abrogating the Constitution, rewriting it by judicial fiat.

Good point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Communist_League_USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party,_USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA_(Provisional)

So how long do we have to do this -1 day, 2 days, 3 days? And then when we are done, how long until something else gets you angry and you start the same thing again?

"again discuss how the GOP is constantly trying to impose rules on voting (that aren't in the const.) that harm minorities? "

Yes, let's. Every single time this comes up, some people ask why the requirement of getting id cards, is more burdensome for anyone based on the color of their skin. And every time that question is asked, there is no response. Because unless the fee is higher for blacks, or blacks have to climb stairs to get to the right office while whites can take the elevator, it's not even close to being racist. There may be cultural forces that determine who is more likely to jump through the hoops to get an id, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

"trying to provide a floor of help for someone is holding them down"

Incorrect. Everyone agrees that a safety net is a good thing. Democrats want to go further, they want to make huge numbers of blacks permanently dependent on welfare, so they will keep voting for whoever will give them that welfare. Paul, this is no longer abstract theory or speculation...there is empirical, observable evidence to make my case. You can't solve poverty (on a large scale) by giving money to poor people. Because a lack of money isn't the cause of poverty for many, it's the effect. The cause of their poverty, is often poor decision-making, or destructive personal habits, and if there's one thing we know for certain, it is this - you cannot cure that by giving someone $500 a month. We have been trying that for 50 years, and all it does is make things worse. Similarly, you don't help a drug addict by giving him cash.

"you ducked the question by stating it is the same reason the communists supported the Dems"

No, I answered the question spot on, by pointing to the fact that communists support Hilary. Obviously, there is an assumption in this country (incorrect, based on the facts) that the Democrats care about blacks, and that the GOP is racist. Most media outlets re-state this constantly, so no surprise that some thoughtless morons (like those in the KKK) would start to believe it. That doesn't make it true.

The KKK supporting Trump doesn't mean he's more racist, any more than Black Lives Matter's support of Democrats, means that Dems want to murder police officers. You cannot judge a huge political group by the actions of the lunatic fringe of either party. If Trump invites the head of the Klan to the Oval Office 70 times like Obama invited Sharpton, then I will be the first to comment that you are right, that Trump is a white supremacist. He hasn't gone down that road yet. Obama has. BIG difference.

"Obama met with him bc he speaks for a large black pop"

Agreed. But that's BAD for blacks, Paul. Blacks need to learn that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. By inviting him to the Oval Office every month, it legitimizes the disgusting bile that Sharpton spews. The reason why blacks turn to to Sharpton, is because your party, and the media in their control, tell blacks that Sharpton is right when he blames everything on whitey. That hurts blacks in the long run, it increases the racial divide, but it helps democrats at the voting booth, and that's all they care about.

"a compassionate country should have - like food stamps for poor or preschool funding, etc"

Again, you can go too far with the amount of welfare you give someone. At some point, you rob them of their ability to stand on their own two feet. Despite what you clearly believe, liberals don't have a monopoly on compassion. I have posted repeatedly, the study called Who Really Cares, which de-bunks that myth. But Democrats keep saying it, and the media keeps saying it, so people like you start to believe it.

So how long do we have to do this -1 day, 2 days, 3 days? And then when we are done, how long until something else gets you angry and you start the same thing again?

"are no policies that Sharpton wants that gets proposed other than things a compassionate country should have"

You seem to be forgetting that in the past, a handful of innocent people have been murdered at Sharpton rallies, after he hets the crowd good and riled up. Then there's the whole Tawana Brawley thing.

For you to say with a straight face that Sharpton's platform is based on "compassion", is probably the most demonstrably false thing you will ever post.

I suppose it was compassionate when Sharpton referred to New York City as "hymie-town".

You are proving my exact point, Paul...I call out the scumbags on my side, you are bending over backwards to ignore all the damage Sharpton does, and act as if all that matters are the few good things he supports.

Paul, one is judged on the totality of everything they do...not just the good stuff.

Donald Trump gives a ton of money to charity, and he is know to give big money, at the spur of the moment, to people having tough times. His family just recently raised tens of millions of dollars for, I think, St Judes Children's hospital. He is to be commended for that. But that doesn't mean I am wrong when I say that he is an obnoxious, egotistical pig.

"again discuss how the GOP is constantly trying to impose rules on voting (that aren't in the const.) that harm minorities? "

Yes, let's. Every single time this comes up, some people ask why the requirement of getting id cards, is more burdensome for anyone based on the color of their skin. no, I have answered the question a few times (the whole surgical precision thing)- so here we go again.

From an article I just found -
The court wrote that various provisions of North Carolina's law "target African Americans with almost surgical precision,"
The [original] version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to DMV-issued photo IDs....With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.

....Legislators also requested data as to the racial breakdown of early voting usage....The racial data provided to the legislators revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting in both 2008 and 2012....After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting.

....Legislators similarly requested data as to the racial makeup of same-day registrants....SL 2013-381 eliminated same-day registration....Legislators additionally requested a racial breakdown of provisional voting....With SL 2013-381, the General Assembly altogether eliminated out-of-precinct voting....African Americans also disproportionately used preregistration.... Although preregistration increased turnout among young adult voters, SL 2013-381 eliminated it.

....As “evidence of justifications” for the changes to early voting, the State offered purported inconsistencies in voting hours across counties, including the fact that only some counties had decided to offer Sunday voting. The State then elaborated on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”

It's not just that every provision coincidentally happens to affect blacks disproportionately. In at least a couple of cases, provisions were added only after the legislature had racial breakdowns in hand so they could make sure they weren't accidentally targeting whites too.
And every time that question is asked, there is no response. not true, we have discussed it a few times. Because unless the fee is higher for blacks, or blacks have to climb stairs to get to the right office while whites can take the elevator, it's not even close to being racist. There may be cultural forces that determine who is more likely to jump through the hoops to get an id, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

"trying to provide a floor of help for someone is holding them down"

Incorrect. Everyone agrees that a safety net is a good thing. Democrats want to go further, they want to make huge numbers of blacks permanently dependent on welfare, So I guess you thing blacks aren't smart enough to recognize what the Dems are doing?so they will keep voting for whoever will give them that welfare. Paul, this is no longer abstract theory or speculation...there is empirical, observable evidence to make my case. You can't solve poverty (on a large scale) by giving money to poor people. Because a lack of money isn't the cause of poverty for many, it's the effect. The cause of their poverty, is often poor decision-making, or destructive personal habits, and if there's one thing we know for certain, it is this - you cannot cure that by giving someone $500 a month. We have been trying that for 50 years, and all it does is make things worse. Similarly, you don't help a drug addict by giving him cash.

"you ducked the question by stating it is the same reason the communists supported the Dems"

No, I answered the question spot on, by pointing to the fact that communists support Hilary. Obviously, there is an assumption in this country (incorrect, based on the facts) that the Democrats care about blacks, and that the GOP is racist. Most media outlets re-state this constantly, so no surprise that some thoughtless morons (like those in the KKK) would start to believe it. That doesn't make it true.

The KKK supporting Trump doesn't mean he's more racist, any more than Black Lives Matter's support of Democrats, means that Dems want to murder police officers. You cannot judge a huge political group by the actions of the lunatic fringe of either partySo I'm confused bc isn't that the intent of the thread you started?. If Trump invites the head of the Klan to the Oval Office 70 times like Obama invited Sharpton, then I will be the first to comment that you are right, that Trump is a white supremacist. He hasn't gone down that road yet. Obama has. BIG difference.

"Obama met with him bc he speaks for a large black pop"

Agreed. But that's BAD for blacks, Paul. Blacks need to learn that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. By inviting him to the Oval Office every month, it legitimizes the disgusting bile that Sharpton spews. The reason why blacks turn to to Sharpton, is because your party, and the media in their control, tell blacks that Sharpton is right when he blames everything on whitey. That hurts blacks in the long run, it increases the racial divide, but it helps democrats at the voting booth, and that's all they care about.

"a compassionate country should have - like food stamps for poor or preschool funding, etc"

Again, you can go too far with the amount of welfare you give someone. At some point, you rob them of their ability to stand on their own two feet. Despite what you clearly believe, liberals don't have a monopoly on compassion. I have posted repeatedly, the study called Who Really Cares, which de-bunks that myth. But Democrats keep saying it, and the media keeps saying it, so people like you start to believe it.

So again, how many days do we do this - 1 day, 2, 3 and when will something that angers causes you to start the same type of thread?

So again, how many days do we do this - 1 day, 2, 3 and when will something that angers causes you to start the same type of thread?

Paul, you can post all the articles you want saying that when id laws are put in place, black turnout is reduced more than white turnout.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S RACIST.

Way more black children are born into homes without a father, than white babies. Does that mean the institution of fatherhood is racist? No. It means that certain cultural triggers lead to disproportional fatherlessness, and blacks are more likely to embrace those cultural triggers (thanks to liberalism, by the way).

If the process for getting the id is the same for blacks, but blacks choose not to get the id, that's not racism. That's cultural laziness.

Cry all you want. Unless the process is designed to make it more burdensome for blacks to get the id, it ain't racist.

"I guess you thing blacks aren't smart enough to recognize what the Dems are doing"

Not at all. I am saying that blacks are either being specifically targeted by liberals to become welfare dependent on a large scale, or liberals are too stupid to see the clear damage being done by the policies they endorse.

How bad do things have to get in the cities, exactly, before liberals conclude that the policies are not working? And why is it racist for conservatives to claim that people in the cities deserve better, and therefore we need to try something different than what we are currently doing?

"So I'm confused bc isn't that the intent of the thread you started?. "

No. The thread isn't pointing to the "lunatic fringe" of the Democratic party. This is a sitting US Congressman. Have any Democrats suggest said that the painting should be removed, and that the guy who out it up is a jerk for doing so?

Paul, you can post all the articles you want saying that when id laws are put in place, black turnout is reduced more than white turnout.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S RACIST.I agree it doesn't mean it is racist. But who is the judge? A certain % of the population believe it is. The judge said it specifically targeted blacks.

"So I'm confused bc isn't that the intent of the thread you started?. "

No. The thread isn't pointing to the "lunatic fringe" of the Democratic party. This is a sitting US Congressman. Have any Democrats suggest said that the painting should be removed, and that the guy who out it up is a jerk for doing so?

Sorry, I thought the title of the thread was difference between the parties.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115111]Sorry, I thought the title of the thread was difference between the parties.[/QUOTE
The difference between influential leaders of the parties, Paul, not the difference between the lunatic fringe of the two parties. The difference between what the parties actually represent.

Big whoop some judge says it targets blacks. Can you tell me why, specifically, its harder for blacks to get the id? What is it about the process that's any different, for one race versus another? I am all ears
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115111]Sorry, I thought the title of the thread was difference between the parties.[/QUOTE
The difference between influential leaders of the parties, Paul, not the difference between the lunatic fringe of the two parties. The difference between what the parties actually represent.

Big whoop some judge says it targets blacks. Can you tell me why, specifically, its harder for blacks to get the id? What is it about the process that's any different, for one race versus another? I am all ears
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Day 3 - so maybe we'll go until day 4? And this has been discussed, but I guess we have to discuss it again.

What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder. That is not the issue.

I would imagine that a drivers license is the most common form of ID and blacks not having as many driver's licenses has something to do it (my Grand uncle died at 102 and voted every election - didn't drive, once he came here from another country never flew anywhere. So he didn't have a drivers license or a passport. Maybe he had a SS card - I don't know). The poorer folks live in the cities to be near the services there (hospitals, transportation, etc) and have less need for licenses. The older blacks might not have been born in hospitals many years ago so don't have birth certificates. Don't have as much $ as whites on average so they don't fly and don't have passports. I read that about 10% of the American's don't have a valid government ID. In some states you have to travel up to 250 miles to get an ID.

There have been numerous times when a strict ID law gets passed and word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

But again - that is not the issue.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115114]

Day 3 - so maybe we'll go until day 4? And this has been discussed, but I guess we have to discuss it again.

What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder. That is not the issue.

I would imagine that a drivers license is the most common form of ID and blacks not having as many driver's licenses has something to do it (my Grand uncle died at 102 and voted every election - didn't drive, once he came here from another country never flew anywhere. So he didn't have a drivers license or a passport. Maybe he had a SS card - I don't know). The poorer folks live in the cities to be near the services there (hospitals, transportation, etc) and have less need for licenses. The older blacks might not have been born in hospitals many years ago so don't have birth certificates. Don't have as much $ as whites on average so they don't fly and don't have passports. I read that about 10% of the American's don't have a valid government ID. In some states you have to travel up to 250 miles to get an ID.

There have been numerous times when a strict ID law gets passed and word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

But again - that is not the issue.

"What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder. "

Show me a post from a black who says it's harder because they are black, and why.

Let me see if I have an accurate grasp of your position here...

Paul: it's harder for blacks to get the id
Jim: how is the process harder for one race than another
Paul: because I say so

Is that about right? That's your argument? Paul, just last night, my 5 year-old told me I was a rotten father because I made him eat his veggies. He said I was a rotten person. Was I being mean? Nope. But he said I was.

Just because someone says something, doesn't make it so. If blacks freely choose not to get the id, that's their choice, it's not something that whitey forced upon them.

How did your grand uncle cash a check?

People in cities may not need drivers licenses. That doesn't mean they don't need a photo id.

Requiring a photo id is viewed by some, as a way of safeguarding the integrity of the process. I don't doubt that d requirements suppress more black votes than white votes. But that doesn't make it racist. It's only racist, if it's harder for blacks to get the id than whites. If the process of getting an id is too cumbersome, we need to address that. But if it's just a matter of people being too lazy to get the id, the fault lies with them, not with the law.

"word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

Then that person should be hounded from public service.

[QUOTE=PaulS;1115150]

"What difference does it make why it is harder? Blacks and Latinos say it is harder.

Show me a post from a black who says it's harder because they are black, and why.

It not that it is harder specifically bc they are black. It is harder bc of the circumstances they are in - and those circumstances effect blacks at a higher % than whites. The judge said that once NC (and other states) realized that, they changed the laws and that impacted blacks "with surgical precision".



Hargie Randall, 72, was born in his family’s home in Huntsville, Tex., and has lived in the state his entire life. Randall, now living in Houston’s low-income Fifth Ward neighborhood, has several health problems and such poor eyesight that he is legally blind. He can’t drive and has to ask others for rides.




After Texas implemented its new law, Randall went to the Department of Public Safety (the Texas agency that handles driver’s licenses and identification cards) three times to try to get a photo ID to vote. Each time Randall was told he needed different items. First, he was told he needed three forms of identification. He came back and brought his Medicaid card, bills and a current voter registration card from voting in past elections.

“I thought that because I was on record for voting, I could vote again,” Randall said.

But he was told he still needed more documentation, such as a certified copy of his birth certificate.

Records of births before 1950, such as Randall’s, are not on a central computer and are located only in the county clerk’s office where the person was born.

For Randall, that meant an hour-long drive to Huntsville, where his lawyers found a copy of his birth certificate.

But that wasn’t enough. With his birth certificate in hand, Randall went to the DPS office in Houston with all the necessary documents. But, DPS officials still would not issue him a photo ID because of a clerical mistake on his birth certificate. One letter was off in his last name — “Randell” instead of “Randall” — so his last name was spelled slightly different than on all his other documents.

Kamin, the lawyer, asked the DPS official if they could pull up Randall’s prior driver’s-license information, as he once had a state-issued ID. The official told her that the state doesn’t keep records of prior identification after five years, and there was nothing they could do to pull up that information.

Kamin was finally able to prove to a DPS supervisor that there was a clerical error and was able to verify Randall’s identity by showing other documents.

But Myrtle Delahuerta, 85, who lives across town from Randall, has tried unsuccessfully for two years to get her ID. She has the same problem of her birth certificate not matching her pile of other legal documents that she carts from one government office to the next. The disabled woman, who has difficulty walking, is applying to have her name legally changed, a process that will cost her more than $300 and has required a background check and several trips to government offices.


Let me see if I have an accurate grasp of your position here...

Paul: it's harder for blacks to get the id
Jim: how is the process harder for one race than another
Paul: because I say soNo, I told you why - they are poorer and don't drive so they don't have licenses in the same % as whites.

Is that about right? That's your argument? Paul, just last night, my 5 year-old told me I was a rotten father because I made him eat his veggies. He said I was a rotten person. Was I being mean? Nope. But he said I was.

Just because someone says something, doesn't make it so. If blacks freely choose not to get the id, that's their choice, it's not something that whitey forced upon them.

How did your grand uncle cash a check?Went to the bank and they let him with his bank book. I think he dealt mostly in cash.

People in cities may not need drivers licenses. That doesn't mean they don't need a photo id. Correct, and many of those laws don't allow those IDs to be used for voting - things like student IDs.

Requiring a photo id is viewed by some, as a way of safeguarding the integrity of the process. I don't doubt that d requirements suppress more black votes than white votes. But that doesn't make it racist. It's only racist, if it's harder for blacks to get the id than whites. And I explained above why the laws effect more blacks than whitesIf the process of getting an id is too cumbersome, we need to address that. But if it's just a matter of people being too lazy to get the id, the fault lies with them, not with the law.You shouldn't have to go 250 miles to get an ID to vote.

"word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

Then that person should be hounded from public service.

We haven't even discussed the reason to shorten voting time - Which Rep. found hurts minorites more.

So you have 1 party which gerimands voting districts, does all it can to try to limit what times/when and adds requirements that people have ids -(all that hurt minorities) vs another party that wants to expand voting times/access and you can't see why some people view that as racist.

This weekend, Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) finally admitted what so many have speculated: Voter identification efforts are meant to suppress Democratic votes in this year’s election.
At the Republican State Committee meeting, Turzai took the stage and let slip the truth about why Republicans are so insistent on voter identification efforts — it will win Romney the election, he said:
“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.

And from the Judge who wrote the majority opinion.


Judge Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit said effects were not clear in 2007.
But there was Richard A. Posner, one of the most distinguished judges in the land and a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, saying he was mistaken in one of the most contentious issues in American politics and jurisprudence: laws that require people to show identification before they can vote.
Proponents of voter identification laws, who tend to be Republican, say the measures are necessary to prevent fraud at the polls. Opponents, who tend to be Democrats, assert that the amount of fraud at polling places is tiny, and that the burdens of the laws are enough to suppress voting, especially among poor and minority Americans.
One of the landmark cases in which such requirements were affirmed, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was decided at the Seventh Circuit in an opinion written by Judge Posner in 2007 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008.
In a new book, “Reflections on Judging,” Judge Posner, a prolific author who also teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, said, “I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion” in the case. He noted that the Indiana law in the Crawford case is “a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”
Judge Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, extended his remarks in a video interview with The Huffington Post on Friday.
Asked whether the court had gotten its ruling wrong, Judge Posner responded: “Yes. Absolutely.” Back in 2007, he said, “there hadn’t been that much activity in the way of voter identification,” and “we weren’t really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disenfranchise people entitled to vote.” The member of the three-judge panel who dissented from the majority decision, Terence T. Evans, “was right,” Judge Posner said.
The dissent by Judge Evans, who died in 2011, began, “Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Judge Posner noted that the primary opinion in the 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding the law had been written by Justice John Paul Stevens, “who is, of course, very liberal.” The outcome of the case goes to show, he said, that oftentimes, “judges aren’t given the facts that they need to make a sound decision.”
“We weren’t given the information that would enable that balance to be struck” between preventing fraud and protecting voters’ rights, he added.
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and an expert on election law, said an admission of error by a judge is unusual, and “gives to Democrats an ‘I-told-you-so’ ” argument on voter identification issues.
More significant, he said, it reflects what he called a recent shift. Previously, cases were decided largely along party lines, but then “you started seeing both Democratic- and Republican-leaning judges” reining in voter identification requirements.
Judge Posner seemed surprised that his comments had caused a stir, and said much had changed since Crawford. “There’s always been strong competition between the parties, but it hadn’t reached the peak of ferocity that it’s since achieved,” he said in the interview. “One wasn’t alert to this kind of trickery, even though it’s age old in the democratic process.”

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1115114]
I would imagine that a drivers license is the most common form of ID and blacks not having as many driver's licenses has something to do it

But many or most blacks do have drivers licenses, and many whites do not. And the regulation does not specify race. So the regulation is not race specific. Percentages of a particular race contrasted to percentages of another cannot be a basis for deciding constitutional issues because the percentages are never equal. Therefor very few, if any, regulations could be enacted

(my Grand uncle died at 102 and voted every election - didn't drive, once he came here from another country never flew anywhere. So he didn't have a drivers license or a passport. Maybe he had a SS card - I don't know). The poorer folks live in the cities to be near the services there (hospitals, transportation, etc) and have less need for licenses. The older blacks might not have been born in hospitals many years ago so don't have birth certificates. Don't have as much $ as whites on average so they don't fly and don't have passports. I read that about 10% of the American's don't have a valid government ID. In some states you have to travel up to 250 miles to get an ID.

Poverty is not race specific. A lot of whites (and that number has been growing) are classified as poor. They also live in cities for the same reason as other races. Everything you cite as a disadvantage here can be applied to whites and other races as well. If a regulation cannot be passed if it affects poor people more than those who are not poor, then, again, very few, if any regulations can be passed since the poor of all colors are disadvantaged in every instance except those regulations which specifically target the poor for benefits. And those, it might be argued, are a burden to the non-poor who have to pay the price.

There have been numerous times when a strict ID law gets passed and word leaks out that a Rep. state rep. said something like "this will help keep the Dem. voter turnout down".

But again - that is not the issue.

When President Lyndon Johnson said that passing the Civil Rights Act would keep the N-words voting for the Dems for 200 years, that did not make the Act unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional for other reasons (but that apparently was not an issue) but not because of what he said.

Again, these sorts of made up arguments that go outside of actual constitutional limitations in order to reach decisions which seem socially just to a particular judge replace and rewrite the Constitution. Judges are not supposed to do that. It is up to the people through their Congress (who wrote it in the first place) to amend the Constitution. Judicial activism should be opposed by both sides of the aisle since it can cut both ways, left or right.

And from the Judge who wrote the majority opinion.


Judge Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit said effects were not clear in 2007.
But there was Richard A. Posner, one of the most distinguished judges in the land and a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, saying he was mistaken in one of the most contentious issues in American politics and jurisprudence: laws that require people to show identification before they can vote.
Proponents of voter identification laws, who tend to be Republican, say the measures are necessary to prevent fraud at the polls. Opponents, who tend to be Democrats, assert that the amount of fraud at polling places is tiny, and that the burdens of the laws are enough to suppress voting, especially among poor and minority Americans.
One of the landmark cases in which such requirements were affirmed, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was decided at the Seventh Circuit in an opinion written by Judge Posner in 2007 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008.
In a new book, “Reflections on Judging,” Judge Posner, a prolific author who also teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, said, “I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion” in the case. He noted that the Indiana law in the Crawford case is “a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”
Judge Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, extended his remarks in a video interview with The Huffington Post on Friday.
Asked whether the court had gotten its ruling wrong, Judge Posner responded: “Yes. Absolutely.” Back in 2007, he said, “there hadn’t been that much activity in the way of voter identification,” and “we weren’t really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disenfranchise people entitled to vote.” The member of the three-judge panel who dissented from the majority decision, Terence T. Evans, “was right,” Judge Posner said.
The dissent by Judge Evans, who died in 2011, began, “Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Judge Posner noted that the primary opinion in the 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding the law had been written by Justice John Paul Stevens, “who is, of course, very liberal.” The outcome of the case goes to show, he said, that oftentimes, “judges aren’t given the facts that they need to make a sound decision.”
“We weren’t given the information that would enable that balance to be struck” between preventing fraud and protecting voters’ rights, he added.
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and an expert on election law, said an admission of error by a judge is unusual, and “gives to Democrats an ‘I-told-you-so’ ” argument on voter identification issues.
More significant, he said, it reflects what he called a recent shift. Previously, cases were decided largely along party lines, but then “you started seeing both Democratic- and Republican-leaning judges” reining in voter identification requirements.
Judge Posner seemed surprised that his comments had caused a stir, and said much had changed since Crawford. “There’s always been strong competition between the parties, but it hadn’t reached the peak of ferocity that it’s since achieved,” he said in the interview. “One wasn’t alert to this kind of trickery, even though it’s age old in the democratic process.”

"And from the Judge who wrote the majority opinion."

and if I quote the judge who wrote the majority opinion in the Dredd Scott Case, does that mean you support slavery? Judges make huge mistakes, ask Sonia Sotomayor who has been overturned a jillion times.

Paul, if the law is implemented for the specific purpose of suppressing Democrat turnout, that's despicable. If the law is implemented to prevent voter fraud (which of course it does) and some people choose not to get the id, I have no issue with that. Zip.

I started this post to point out the differences between the parties. Another common theme of the left, is to label everything which they do not like, as racist.

"And from the Judge who wrote the majority opinion."

and if I quote the judge who wrote the majority opinion in the Dredd Scott Case, does that mean you support slavery? That makes zero sense. Judges make huge mistakes, ask Sonia Sotomayor who has been overturned a jillion times.

Paul, if the law is implemented for the specific purpose of suppressing Democrat turnout, that's despicable and I can show you other quotes from people how admited that was the intent. Now I know KC Conway has said we shouldn't listen to what someone says but what is in their heart - the meaning is pretty clear.. If the law is implemented to prevent voter fraud (which of course it does)yet the voter fraud is minute. And shortening voting periods does nothing for voter fraud. and some people choose not to get the id, I have no issue with that. Zip.

I started this post to point out the differences between the parties. And I responded to you to show you both parties have kooks and do things neither of us may agree with. Yet you continue to label a whole party with something 1 person or a minority of people in that party do (does that sentence sound familiar?) Another common theme of the left, is to label everything which they do not like, as racist.

I showed you how some people can view the laws restricting voting as racist.

I showed you how some people can view the laws restricting voting as racist.

"That makes zero sense"

You attempted to prove that id's are racist, by quoting the judge that wrote the opinion. In other words, according to you, if the judge says it's racist, that means you think it's racist. Well, I can find a judge's opinion that upholds slavery. My point is that just because a judge says something, that doesn't make it so.

"yet the voter fraud is minute"

You are probably correct. But we can reduce it a lot further by requiring proof of identity. Amazing to me that liberals go berserk at the notion that if someone shows up to vote, we might require that they prove their identity. Again, it shows the differences between the two parties. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for some proof of identity in order to vote. If I got to the poll and was told that someone already voted who said they were me, I would be none too happy. Amazing to me that liberals find that controversial.

"I responded to you to show you both parties have kooks and do things neither of us may agree with"

I never claimed that the lunatic fringe of the democratic party, speaks for all democrats. Is Obama the lunatic fringe? Is the DNC the lunatic fringe? Is the Congressional Black Caucus the lunatic fringe?

Paul, I voted for Trump. I don't feel responsible for the way he talks about women. But you can feel free to claim that I support the vast majority of his policy decisions. Using that logic, if Obama kisses up to Al Sharpton, I feel it's valid to say that Democrats are comfortable cozying up to racist hatemongers who don't pay their taxes.

"you continue to label a whole party with something 1 person or a minority of people in that party do "

That's not how I see it. I feel you continue to deny that liberals believe in the core beliefs of liberalism - abortion, open borders, large federal government, high taxes and spending. I would never claim that one obscure lunatic speaks for all democrats. But you seem intent to deny that there are any common themes that apply, in general, to democrats.

You attempted to prove that id's are racist, by quoting the judge that wrote the opinion. In other words, according to you, if the judge says it's racist, that means you think it's racist. No, my point was that judge said if he know how the law would be used, he wouldn't have voted the way he did. Well, I can find a judge's opinion that upholds slavery. My point is that just because a judge says something, that doesn't make it so.

"yet the voter fraud is minute"

You are probably correct. But we can reduce it a lot further by requiring proof of identity. So many, many thousands don't get to vote so we can reduce the 31 cases of voter fraud to zero?


In an Aug. 16, 2014, article for the Washington Post, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, currently on leave to work with the Department of Justice overseeing voting, wrote that he has been tracking allegations of voter fraud for years, including any “credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.”

“So far,” he wrote, “I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. … To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.”
so instead of like 50 votes nationwide over Amazing to me that liberals go berserk at the notion that if someone shows up to vote, we might require that they prove their identity. Again, it shows the differences between the two parties. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for some proof of identity in order to vote. If I got to the poll and was told that someone already voted who said they were me, I would be none too happy. Amazing to me that liberals find that controversial.And it is amazing to me that conservatives can go beserk by incorrectly saying that there are massive amounts of voter fraud when infact there isn't.

"I responded to you to show you both parties have kooks and do things neither of us may agree with"

I never claimed that the lunatic fringe of the democratic party, speaks for all democrats. Again, for what the 5th time? What is the title of this thread? Is Obama the lunatic fringe? Is the DNC the lunatic fringe? Is the Congressional Black Caucus the lunatic fringe?

Paul, I voted for Trump. I don't feel responsible for the way he talks about women. But you can feel free to claim that I support the vast majority of his policy decisions.Did I ever do that? Pls. point it out. The only thing I have done is when you apply to all Dems. what some Dem. has done, that you don't like I have done the same to the Rep. (poorly worded sentence). I don't know if I have ever commented on his policies? Certainly about his honesty. Using that logic, if Obama kisses up to Al Sharpton, I feel it's valid to say that Democrats are comfortable cozying up to racist hatemongers who don't pay their taxes.Do Steve Bannon's views represent all Rep?

"you continue to label a whole party with something 1 person or a minority of people in that party do "

That's not how I see it. I feel you continue to deny that liberals believe in the core beliefs of liberalism - abortion, open borders, large federal government, high taxes and spending. I would never claim that one obscure lunatic speaks for all democrats. But you seem intent to deny that there are any common themes that apply, in general, to democrats.

I agree that those broadly in general are things the liberals believe it. I have never denied that.

I agree that those broadly in general are things the liberals believe it. I have never denied that.

"So many, many thousands don't get to vote so we can reduce the 31 cases of voter fraud to zero?"

If the process to get an id is reasonable, then anyone who doesn't get to vote, is a result of a free choice they made not to get an id.

He found 31, huh? If someone pretended to be someone else who didn't show up to vote, and then got away with it, how would this DOJ official have known about that?

Paul, I will never say that voter fraud (pretending to be someone else) is rampant. I am saying that it happens, and I don't see that requiring an id (which reduces that crime) is all that oppressive. We all have to jump through hoops, occasionally, to function in this society we have.

You have never held me accountable for Trump's policies, not once. I am saying, you can. If Trump votes to repel Obamacare, you can say "those jerks in the GOP repealed Oamacare", and I cannot refute that.

Again, I don't know that you have ever conceded that there are some general policy beliefs that it's fair to assign to the Democratic party. No two people are identical, but it's not unfair for me to say that Dems support abortion, nor I sit unfair for me to say that Dems are attacking police officers. Maybe not all Dems do it, but very very few speak out against it.

"So many, many thousands don't get to vote so we can reduce the 31 cases of voter fraud to zero?"

If the process to get an id is reasonable, then anyone who doesn't get to vote, is a result of a free choice they made not to get an id. If they can't afford an approved voter ID like a drivers license, you are correct it is their choice. Is that really what we want to do?

He found 31, huh? If someone pretended to be someone else who didn't show up to vote, and then got away with it, how would this DOJ official have known about that?IF you do a search on voter fraud, that is always the Right's arguement.

Paul, I will never say that voter fraud (pretending to be someone else) is rampant. I am saying that it happens, and I don't see that requiring an id (which reduces that crime) is all that oppressive. We all have to jump through hoops, occasionally, to function in this society we have.

You have never held me accountable for Trump's policies, not once. I am saying, you can. If Trump votes to repel Obamacare, you can say "those jerks in the GOP repealed Oamacare", and I cannot refute that.

Again, I don't know that you have ever conceded that there are some general policy beliefs that it's fair to assign to the Democratic party. No two people are identical, but it's not unfair for me to say that Dems support abortion, nor I sit unfair for me to say that Dems are attacking police officers. Maybe not all Dems do it, but very very few speak out against it.

I agree that the Dems in general support abortion and as I stated in my prior post there are other things that generally Dems support. certainly not all Dems. Just as not all who vote Rep. are against abortion or support other things on the Rep. platform.

I think it is reprehensable to attack PO. Certainly there are "bad" PO just as there are bad people in every profession. The vast majority do a great job.