If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   ♫I can't believe the news today, Joe Biden defends Voting Rights Act so it doesn't go away, How long? How long with this go on? How long? On this Sunday, Bloody Sunday♫   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 39
    More: Cool, Voting Rights Act, Biden, Strom Thurmond, human beings, Biden defends, Naval Observatory, suffrages, Chief Justice John Roberts  
•       •       •

506 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2013 at 7:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-04 07:57:46 AM
At first, I thought the submitter was trying to parody "A Day In the Life", then I thought it was "Point of No Return" by Kansas, until I finally realized it was supposed to be U2.  I guess that says a lot about my age and musical taste.
 
2013-03-04 07:57:53 AM
Headline needs some fixin'.
 
2013-03-04 07:58:03 AM
Good to see the Republicans got the message from their 2012 smackdown. Keep on being the party of bigoted assholes and see how that works out.
 
2013-03-04 07:58:12 AM
Now I have that song stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch,subby.

Still don't understand why the conservative establishment is so okay with the idea of disenfranchising voters in a democracy/republic in 2013...
 
2013-03-04 07:59:11 AM

CarnySaur: At first, I thought the submitter was trying to parody "A Day In the Life", then I thought it was "Point of No Return" by Kansas, until I finally realized it was supposed to be U2.  I guess that says a lot about my age and musical taste.


If you add in a few dozen buzzwords you'd have a PocketNinja post!
 
2013-03-04 08:05:30 AM

LucklessWonder: Still don't understand why the conservative establishment is so okay with the idea of disenfranchising voters in a democracy/republic in 2013...


What?  You do realize that this is all about getting Republicans to win elections by disenfranchising people that vote for Democrats. right?  I mean, if the GOP could find an excuse to disenfranchise every single person who voted for Obama in either of the last two elections, they would do it in a heartbeat.
 
2013-03-04 08:12:10 AM
The worst Supreme Court since Plessy vs. Ferguson.
 
2013-03-04 08:12:45 AM

Testiclaw: CarnySaur: At first, I thought the submitter was trying to parody "A Day In the Life", then I thought it was "Point of No Return" by Kansas, until I finally realized it was supposed to be U2.  I guess that says a lot about my age and musical taste.

If you add in a few dozen buzzwords you'd have a PocketNinja post!


Point of order: Do you mean StopArrestingMe?  Cause to quote another farker, PN juggles kittens 500 feet up on a high-wire with shoes made of razor blades.  SAM was our word searcher.  And we miss him.
 
2013-03-04 08:15:05 AM

Dr. Bogenbroom: Headline needs some fixin'.


Mojo Nixon?

/he don't work here
 
2013-03-04 08:15:10 AM

Dr. Bogenbroom: Headline needs some fixin'.


Should have been writtin' by Mojo Nixon.
 
2013-03-04 08:16:22 AM
The very fact that someone is challenging the VRA should be evidence that it's still necessary.

We've been voting in this country for over 200 years.  If there's still some problem with your local elections then it's almost certainly minor enough that it'll wait the 4 - 8 weeks for the Justice Department to find the disenfranchising aspects and tell you your 'solution' isn't going to fly.
 
2013-03-04 08:24:25 AM

LucklessWonder: Now I have that song stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch,subby.

Still don't understand why the conservative establishment is so okay with the idea of disenfranchising voters in a democracy/republic in 2013...


Because they understand that conservatism is a failed philosophy and the only way they can win is to cheat.
 
2013-03-04 08:25:51 AM

jcooli09: LucklessWonder: Now I have that song stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch,subby.

Still don't understand why the conservative establishment is so okay with the idea of disenfranchising voters in a democracy/republic in 2013...

Because they understand that conservatism is a failed philosophy and the only way they can win is to cheat.


conservatism isn't. This neo-conservatism which is a cross between religious fundamentalism and randism is though
 
2013-03-04 08:27:54 AM

verbaltoxin: The worst Supreme Court since Plessy vs. Ferguson.


Pretty much.
 
2013-03-04 08:31:07 AM

somedude210: jcooli09: LucklessWonder: Now I have that song stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch,subby.

Still don't understand why the conservative establishment is so okay with the idea of disenfranchising voters in a democracy/republic in 2013...

Because they understand that conservatism is a failed philosophy and the only way they can win is to cheat.

conservatism isn't. This neo-conservatism which is a cross between religious fundamentalism and randism is though


My bad, I should have said that 'their brand of conservatism' is a failed philosophy.

Really, what good has popular conservatism done?  There must be something.
 
2013-03-04 08:32:26 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: verbaltoxin: The worst Supreme Court since Plessy vs. Ferguson.

Pretty much.


Especially Scalia.  If you used his reasoning against gay marriage (gays aren't oppressed - they have enough political power to have equal rights in 10? states, but not the federal government), then the VRA would have never been written at all.

"What do you want now?  To be able to vote freely?  Get a load of this guy Clarence - he thinks not having to sit at the back of the bus wasn't good enough for him!"
 
2013-03-04 08:37:22 AM

Karac: Tyrone Slothrop: verbaltoxin: The worst Supreme Court since Plessy vs. Ferguson.

Pretty much.

Especially Scalia.  If you used his reasoning against gay marriage (gays aren't oppressed - they have enough political power to have equal rights in 10? states, but not the federal government), then the VRA would have never been written at all.

"What do you want now?  To be able to vote freely?  Get a load of this guy Clarence - he thinks not having to sit at the back of the bus wasn't good enough for him!"


There was in article in maybe Slate or Salon that explained how Scalia's rationale for his rulings seem to revolve around what he ate that day. I'm exaggerating, but the point is Scalia's been batty for ages, and there's nothing really stopping him from sh*tting on the rule of law until he croaks. It's scary.
 
2013-03-04 08:47:34 AM

jcooli09: somedude210: jcooli09: LucklessWonder: Now I have that song stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch,subby.

Still don't understand why the conservative establishment is so okay with the idea of disenfranchising voters in a democracy/republic in 2013...

Because they understand that conservatism is a failed philosophy and the only way they can win is to cheat.

conservatism isn't. This neo-conservatism which is a cross between religious fundamentalism and randism is though

My bad, I should have said that 'their brand of conservatism' is a failed philosophy.

Really, what good has popular conservatism done?  There must be something.


Well there's...hmm...

What about....no...

Wait, how about....nope...

I got nothin'...
 
2013-03-04 08:59:41 AM

Karac: The very fact that someone is challenging the VRA should be evidence that it's still necessary.


Funny, because it's the same thing with union labor.  If someone is trying to do away with it, it's obvious why they want it gone, as evidenced by the latest clown-show GOP Presidential primary; candidates wanting to do away with minimum wage, wanting to do away with overtime pay, wanting to do away with child labor laws, etc.
 
2013-03-04 09:03:30 AM
Congress 1965:  "Let's write a law that only applies to a select few states so that in 50 years we can act outraged when the law is challenged in court."
 
2013-03-04 09:15:11 AM
Sung to the tune of "Marry had a Little Lamb"
 
2013-03-04 09:25:58 AM
♫  I'm coming, I'm coming, for my head is bending low:
I hear those gentle voices calling, "Old Black Joe".  ♫???
 
2013-03-04 09:37:54 AM
Yep, if kicking thousands of legitimate voters off the rolls isn't a sign that we're ready to ditch the Voting Rights Act, I don't know what is.

/Yes, that's sarcasm.
 
2013-03-04 09:42:57 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Karac: The very fact that someone is challenging the VRA should be evidence that it's still necessary.

Funny, because it's the same thing with union labor.  If someone is trying to do away with it, it's obvious why they want it gone, as evidenced by the latest clown-show GOP Presidential primary; candidates wanting to do away with minimum wage, wanting to do away with overtime pay, wanting to do away with child labor laws, etc.


and yet, the big bad unions that they fear so much would be powerless if they just implemented some real labor laws that improved working conditions so that the workers don't feel the need to actually be able to live and do blue-collar jobs

it's such an bewildering concept that I'm impressed this never crossed their minds.

/hate teacher unions? make public schooling a worthwhile endeavor and we don't need to unionize
 
2013-03-04 09:43:18 AM
I thought arguing over the sinfullness of contraception was bad enough.  I can't even believe that the Voting Rights Act might be over turned.

Everything seems so stuck right now.  We aren't progressing on anything, and are re-hashing issues that were settled decades ago.
 
2013-03-04 09:43:33 AM

DeaH: Yep, if kicking thousands of legitimate voters off the rolls isn't a sign that we're ready to ditch the Voting Rights Act, I don't know what is.

/Yes, that's sarcasm.


So you don't have a clue what the suit is about either, I see.
 
2013-03-04 09:44:14 AM
The funny thing about trying to dismantle our democratic vote, is that you piss off people across the board. Only your most vile of the far right who would gladly turn our country into a fascism so long as it is their ideologies on top are ok with this type of thing.  The rest of us see you for the vile oligarchs that you are.  Destroy the country to maintain your personal power.  Party above Country.
 
2013-03-04 10:07:15 AM

GoldSpider: DeaH: Yep, if kicking thousands of legitimate voters off the rolls isn't a sign that we're ready to ditch the Voting Rights Act, I don't know what is.

/Yes, that's sarcasm.

So you don't have a clue what the suit is about either, I see.


That's your code for your not understanding? Let me explain in small words. The Voting Rights Act put Southern states under special scrutiny and federal supervision for its rules and methods of dealing with voter registration and voting. That is because many Southern states had a history of making hard for black people to vote. The fact that states like Florida are "accidentally" purging thousands of legitimate voters, primarily in minority districts, means that there still needs to be special scrutiny because, obviously, some states are still trying to make it hard for black people to vote. Many Republicans are arguing that the special scrutiny is no longer needed despite massive evidence to the contrary, and that is why the Voting Rights Act is now being looked at by the Supreme Court.

See? Pretty easy to understand.
 
2013-03-04 10:15:10 AM

DeaH: The Voting Rights Act put Southern states under special scrutiny and federal supervision for its rules and methods of dealing with voter registration and voting. That is because many Southern states had a history of making hard for black people to vote. The fact that states like Florida are "accidentally" purging thousands of legitimate voters, primarily in minority districts, means that there still needs to be special scrutiny because, obviously, some states are still trying to make it hard for black people to vote.


My problem with the law isn't with what it does, as I agree that we need to keep these voter protections in place.  My problem is with how the law does this.  In my view, a law that subjectively applies only to certain states is just begging to be challenged in court.  And it's not like it's only southern states today are trying to suppress voting rights.

Update the law to apply the rule to all states, and put the law on much more solid Constitutional bedrock.
 
2013-03-04 10:26:33 AM

GoldSpider: Update the law to apply the rule to all states, and put the law on much more solid Constitutional bedrock.


I'm in favor of applying the Act to all 50 states (for the simple reason that PA, MI and OH aren't Southern, yet are monkeying with voting rights in the same ways), but since Congress is empowered to handle voting rights, it's not a problem of Constitutionality, it's a problem of optics, "fairness" and the aforementioned lack of geographical confinement of the problem.
 
2013-03-04 10:39:20 AM

GoldSpider: DeaH: The Voting Rights Act put Southern states under special scrutiny and federal supervision for its rules and methods of dealing with voter registration and voting. That is because many Southern states had a history of making hard for black people to vote. The fact that states like Florida are "accidentally" purging thousands of legitimate voters, primarily in minority districts, means that there still needs to be special scrutiny because, obviously, some states are still trying to make it hard for black people to vote.

My problem with the law isn't with what it does, as I agree that we need to keep these voter protections in place.  My problem is with how the law does this.  In my view, a law that subjectively applies only to certain states is just begging to be challenged in court.  And it's not like it's only southern states today are trying to suppress voting rights.

Update the law to apply the rule to all states, and put the law on much more solid Constitutional bedrock.


If the issue were that the law, as it currently applies to Southern states, would be applied to all fifty states, I would not have a problem with that. I actually think it's a good idea to expand it. But that isn't what's happening here. If the Voting Rights Act is overturned, they are not going to replace it with a law that applies that level of scrutiny to all states. They will just remove the extra scrutiny. That's not okay with me.
 
2013-03-04 11:04:33 AM

GoldSpider: DeaH: The Voting Rights Act put Southern states under special scrutiny and federal supervision for its rules and methods of dealing with voter registration and voting. That is because many Southern states had a history of making hard for black people to vote. The fact that states like Florida are "accidentally" purging thousands of legitimate voters, primarily in minority districts, means that there still needs to be special scrutiny because, obviously, some states are still trying to make it hard for black people to vote.

My problem with the law isn't with what it does, as I agree that we need to keep these voter protections in place.  My problem is with how the law does this.  In my view, a law that subjectively applies only to certain states is just begging to be challenged in court.  And it's not like it's only southern states today are trying to suppress voting rights.

Update the law to apply the rule to all states, and put the law on much more solid Constitutional bedrock.


Except those states have proven that they have a problem with this.  Though I do agree that the rule should be applied to all states, if we remove the restrictions now, we immediately disenfranchise millions of voters and also lose our chance to spread the requirement.
 
2013-03-04 11:12:04 AM

DeaH: GoldSpider: DeaH: The Voting Rights Act put Southern states under special scrutiny and federal supervision for its rules and methods of dealing with voter registration and voting. That is because many Southern states had a history of making hard for black people to vote. The fact that states like Florida are "accidentally" purging thousands of legitimate voters, primarily in minority districts, means that there still needs to be special scrutiny because, obviously, some states are still trying to make it hard for black people to vote.

My problem with the law isn't with what it does, as I agree that we need to keep these voter protections in place.  My problem is with how the law does this.  In my view, a law that subjectively applies only to certain states is just begging to be challenged in court.  And it's not like it's only southern states today are trying to suppress voting rights.

Update the law to apply the rule to all states, and put the law on much more solid Constitutional bedrock.

If the issue were that the law, as it currently applies to Southern states, would be applied to all fifty states, I would not have a problem with that. I actually think it's a good idea to expand it. But that isn't what's happening here. If the Voting Rights Act is overturned, they are not going to replace it with a law that applies that level of scrutiny to all states. They will just remove the extra scrutiny. That's not okay with me.


The high court cannot rewrite existing law. However, should the court overturn the law, I have little doubt that members of Congress will work to create legislation of identical effectiveness that applies to all states. I can conceive of no possible rational nor honest reason for House Republicans to oppose such an effort.
 
2013-03-04 11:20:50 AM

Dimensio: The high court cannot rewrite existing law. However, should the court overturn the law, I have little doubt that members of Congress will work to create legislation of identical effectiveness that applies to all states. I can conceive of no possible rational nor honest reason for House Republicans to oppose such an effort.


House Republicans can't even keep the government from shutting down.  I don't think they are ready to take on any new legislation, especially not anything as emotionally charged as the Voting Rights Act.
 
2013-03-04 11:23:30 AM

Dimensio: DeaH: GoldSpider: DeaH: The Voting Rights Act put Southern states under special scrutiny and federal supervision for its rules and methods of dealing with voter registration and voting. That is because many Southern states had a history of making hard for black people to vote. The fact that states like Florida are "accidentally" purging thousands of legitimate voters, primarily in minority districts, means that there still needs to be special scrutiny because, obviously, some states are still trying to make it hard for black people to vote.

My problem with the law isn't with what it does, as I agree that we need to keep these voter protections in place.  My problem is with how the law does this.  In my view, a law that subjectively applies only to certain states is just begging to be challenged in court.  And it's not like it's only southern states today are trying to suppress voting rights.

Update the law to apply the rule to all states, and put the law on much more solid Constitutional bedrock.

If the issue were that the law, as it currently applies to Southern states, would be applied to all fifty states, I would not have a problem with that. I actually think it's a good idea to expand it. But that isn't what's happening here. If the Voting Rights Act is overturned, they are not going to replace it with a law that applies that level of scrutiny to all states. They will just remove the extra scrutiny. That's not okay with me.

The high court cannot rewrite existing law. However, should the court overturn the law, I have little doubt that members of Congress will work to create legislation of identical effectiveness that applies to all states. I can conceive of no possible rational nor honest reason for House Republicans to oppose such an effort.


Who says the reason needs to be honest?  I can think of at least one rational,  dishonest reason:  t'keep dem dere ni*BONG* from votin' fer dem dimerrcret heethens.
 
2013-03-04 11:47:15 AM

Dimensio: DeaH: GoldSpider: DeaH: The Voting Rights Act put Southern states under special scrutiny and federal supervision for its rules and methods of dealing with voter registration and voting. That is because many Southern states had a history of making hard for black people to vote. The fact that states like Florida are "accidentally" purging thousands of legitimate voters, primarily in minority districts, means that there still needs to be special scrutiny because, obviously, some states are still trying to make it hard for black people to vote.

My problem with the law isn't with what it does, as I agree that we need to keep these voter protections in place.  My problem is with how the law does this.  In my view, a law that subjectively applies only to certain states is just begging to be challenged in court.  And it's not like it's only southern states today are trying to suppress voting rights.

Update the law to apply the rule to all states, and put the law on much more solid Constitutional bedrock.

If the issue were that the law, as it currently applies to Southern states, would be applied to all fifty states, I would not have a problem with that. I actually think it's a good idea to expand it. But that isn't what's happening here. If the Voting Rights Act is overturned, they are not going to replace it with a law that applies that level of scrutiny to all states. They will just remove the extra scrutiny. That's not okay with me.

The high court cannot rewrite existing law. However, should the court overturn the law, I have little doubt that members of Congress will work to create legislation of identical effectiveness that applies to all states. I can conceive of no possible rational nor honest reason for House Republicans to oppose such an effort.


I am sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek because no one really expects House Republicans to act in a many that relies on being rational, honest, or reasonable.
 
2013-03-04 11:48:06 AM

DeaH: Dimensio: DeaH: GoldSpider: DeaH: The Voting Rights Act put Southern states under special scrutiny and federal supervision for its rules and methods of dealing with voter registration and voting. That is because many Southern states had a history of making hard for black people to vote. The fact that states like Florida are "accidentally" purging thousands of legitimate voters, primarily in minority districts, means that there still needs to be special scrutiny because, obviously, some states are still trying to make it hard for black people to vote.

My problem with the law isn't with what it does, as I agree that we need to keep these voter protections in place.  My problem is with how the law does this.  In my view, a law that subjectively applies only to certain states is just begging to be challenged in court.  And it's not like it's only southern states today are trying to suppress voting rights.

Update the law to apply the rule to all states, and put the law on much more solid Constitutional bedrock.

If the issue were that the law, as it currently applies to Southern states, would be applied to all fifty states, I would not have a problem with that. I actually think it's a good idea to expand it. But that isn't what's happening here. If the Voting Rights Act is overturned, they are not going to replace it with a law that applies that level of scrutiny to all states. They will just remove the extra scrutiny. That's not okay with me.

The high court cannot rewrite existing law. However, should the court overturn the law, I have little doubt that members of Congress will work to create legislation of identical effectiveness that applies to all states. I can conceive of no possible rational nor honest reason for House Republicans to oppose such an effort.

I am sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek because no one really expects House Republicans to act in a many that relies on being rational, honest, or reasonable.


Stupid auto-correct - manner, not many.
 
2013-03-04 02:11:54 PM

jcooli09: somedude210: jcooli09: LucklessWonder: Now I have that song stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch,subby.

Still don't understand why the conservative establishment is so okay with the idea of disenfranchising voters in a democracy/republic in 2013...

Because they understand that conservatism is a failed philosophy and the only way they can win is to cheat.

conservatism isn't. This neo-conservatism which is a cross between religious fundamentalism and randism is though

My bad, I should have said that 'their brand of conservatism' is a failed philosophy.

Really, what good has popular conservatism done?  There must be something.


Effectively unified the various white factions that view themselves as disenfranchised by their privilege being reduced and something APPROACHING equality being reached? (Or at least being closer by the year)

/never forget that those who lose privilege to equality still view it as a reduction in their "rights"
//see also: gay marriage
 
2013-03-04 03:43:58 PM

Empty Matchbook: jcooli09: somedude210: jcooli09: LucklessWonder: Now I have that song stuck in my head. Thanks a bunch,subby.

Still don't understand why the conservative establishment is so okay with the idea of disenfranchising voters in a democracy/republic in 2013...

Because they understand that conservatism is a failed philosophy and the only way they can win is to cheat.

conservatism isn't. This neo-conservatism which is a cross between religious fundamentalism and randism is though

My bad, I should have said that 'their brand of conservatism' is a failed philosophy.

Really, what good has popular conservatism done?  There must be something.

Effectively unified the various white factions that view themselves as disenfranchised by their privilege being reduced and something APPROACHING equality being reached? (Or at least being closer by the year)

/never forget that those who lose privilege to equality still view it as a reduction in their "rights"
//see also: gay marriage


He said "good".  I'd argue that this "unification" is a bad thing, given the disenfranchisement they seem hellbent on causing.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report