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.

(CNN) NewsFlash The Supreme Court ensures our next president will be Lynyrd Skynyrd   (cnn.com) divider line 637
    More: NewsFlash, Voting Rights Act, supreme courts  
•       •       •

28168 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 01:09:10 PM

Oxygen_Thief: Since this is pretty settled law here is what I think is going on...you are using the everyday understanding of rational basis and not the legal understanding.  Your right congress cannot simply pass arbitrarily stupid laws (not so much a debate of this current opinion just be clear) well I suppose at times they can if it was in their power to do so  see congress tax power.  However, I think it is pretty clear that when talk about discrimination in the sense of equal protection we are talking the relationship between an individual or an identified groups rights as applied between them and the government


I've already cited the cases that make it quite clear that  legally the rational basis test applies to  all laws, not just equal protection.  The Footnote Four source of our differing standards does not, at all, say that rational basis only applies to those things that might eventually be subject to equal protection analysis.  Far from it, that case (cited above) applied rational basis to purely economic legislation with no equal protection element.

So stop being insulting; I'm quite directly applying the legal standard, not any commonsense understanding of it.  If you disagree, please cite one or more cases where the Court limits rational basis review to only equal protection cases.  I'm unaware of any such case, and would be happy for the edification if I'm somehow wrong.
 
2013-06-25 01:09:46 PM
Nah. Hank III/Shooter '16!!
 
2013-06-25 01:10:23 PM

pacified: can Scalia die already?


THIS please.  That lard ass can't have too many more years left in his condition.  Lets see if we can get him some gift cards to Jack In The Box or something to just hurry up the process.
 
2013-06-25 01:10:54 PM
Vice President: David Allan Coe

Secretary of Huntin n Fishin: Ted Nugent

Secretary of NASCAR: Bobby Labonte.
 
2013-06-25 01:13:20 PM

d23: I don't know about you, but to me it looks like we're awfully close to the point where everything needs to be reset and restarted.


agree.  hit the re-boot.
 
2013-06-25 01:15:02 PM

mattharvest: Oxygen_Thief: Since this is pretty settled law here is what I think is going on...you are using the everyday understanding of rational basis and not the legal understanding.  Your right congress cannot simply pass arbitrarily stupid laws (not so much a debate of this current opinion just be clear) well I suppose at times they can if it was in their power to do so  see congress tax power.  However, I think it is pretty clear that when talk about discrimination in the sense of equal protection we are talking the relationship between an individual or an identified groups rights as applied between them and the government

I've already cited the cases that make it quite clear that  legally the rational basis test applies to  all laws, not just equal protection.  The Footnote Four source of our differing standards does not, at all, say that rational basis only applies to those things that might eventually be subject to equal protection analysis.  Far from it, that case (cited above) applied rational basis to purely economic legislation with no equal protection element.

So stop being insulting; I'm quite directly applying the legal standard, not any commonsense understanding of it.  If you disagree, please cite one or more cases where the Court limits rational basis review to only equal protection cases.  I'm unaware of any such case, and would be happy for the edification if I'm somehow wrong.


well for one I don't care to research for you...I explained that even in the cases you cited you are not applying the correct legal standard.  So go ahead make the argument and call your malpractice carrier.
 
2013-06-25 01:15:56 PM
Came for fark liberal idiocy, left satisfied.

All the USSC ruled was that you have to update your statistics once every 40 years.

Liberals just hate being forced to show their work. Same with the affirmative action ruling.
 
2013-06-25 01:16:02 PM
Maybe we could get two birds with one stone if we got donations together to hire Paula Deen as Scalia's personal chef for a while.
 
2013-06-25 01:16:39 PM

Carth: is there anything stopping Congress from passing another law


Republicans.
 
2013-06-25 01:17:01 PM

Serious Black: mattharvest: DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.

Yeah, flip that on yourself.  All laws must be rational.  Period.  If they aren't a rational use of their powers, the Court can reverse them.  Feel free to explain why you think the Court cannot reverse a law that is irrational on its face.

The very language of the Constitution makes it clear that Congress cannot arbitrarily legislate; it must legislate to achieve valid governmental purposes.  If it doesn't do so, it is not acting legally, and the Court can reverse Congress' actions.

I'd say let's use one of these maps and formulas to provide a rational basis behind the preclearance list. I especially like the last map.


Nice set of maps - thanks!
 
2013-06-25 01:17:53 PM

Oxygen_Thief: mattharvest: Oxygen_Thief: Since this is pretty settled law here is what I think is going on...you are using the everyday understanding of rational basis and not the legal understanding.  Your right congress cannot simply pass arbitrarily stupid laws (not so much a debate of this current opinion just be clear) well I suppose at times they can if it was in their power to do so  see congress tax power.  However, I think it is pretty clear that when talk about discrimination in the sense of equal protection we are talking the relationship between an individual or an identified groups rights as applied between them and the government

I've already cited the cases that make it quite clear that  legally the rational basis test applies to  all laws, not just equal protection.  The Footnote Four source of our differing standards does not, at all, say that rational basis only applies to those things that might eventually be subject to equal protection analysis.  Far from it, that case (cited above) applied rational basis to purely economic legislation with no equal protection element.

So stop being insulting; I'm quite directly applying the legal standard, not any commonsense understanding of it.  If you disagree, please cite one or more cases where the Court limits rational basis review to only equal protection cases.  I'm unaware of any such case, and would be happy for the edification if I'm somehow wrong.

well for one I don't care to research for you...I explained that even in the cases you cited you are not applying the correct legal standard.  So go ahead make the argument and call your malpractice carrier.


at least in this case.
 
2013-06-25 01:18:04 PM

MyRandomName: Came for fark liberal idiocy, left satisfied.

All the USSC ruled was that you have to update your statistics once every 40 years.

Liberals just hate being forced to show their work. Same with the affirmative action ruling.


The cynic in me thinks that the amendment to the VRA reauthorization that would have done just that was deliberately tanked to destroy the VRA.
 
2013-06-25 01:18:36 PM

what_now: DamnYankees: what_now: You people need to calm the hell down. Cletus can't make black people pay a poll tax, or stop immigrants from voting. There are still federal election laws, and there will still be people to push back against any attempt to overturn them.

Yes, they will be struck down - AFTER THE ELECTION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. That's the point. Voting rights aren't something that you can easily be recompensed for. The election will have already occurred, the disenfranchisement will have already happened. Having a court say "in retrospect that was illegal" doesn't help anyone.

Is that what happened in Pennsylvania?

No. The unconstitutional law was struck down before the vote. Without the precondition clause.


PA did overturn it, but it was a close thing, and it led to great deals of confusion in the voting public.

The PA gov't was taking out ads on buses/billboards/etc telling people that they would need a Voter ID to vote, guess what didn't go away when the law was ruled unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-25 01:20:37 PM

Great_Milenko: hasty ambush:  posted this nonense

[www.survivalandbeyond.net image 720x384]

----------------------

Sigh.

You know, the whole political process would work better if one side wasn't a pack of farking liars:

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/ElectionResults2012/Nov20 12 /amended/11062012AmendedofficialResultsbyContest.HTM



They lied? No wai!

I asked my father in law with all his fw:adnauseum emails why every one of those emails had lies in them. Religion, politics, aclu, acorn, snopes is run by libby libs...  every single one had an obfuscation of truth or just straight out lies.
He had no answer other than 'I get my news from many sources.' Which I know he doesn't.
Tell me , dad, why would you get your news from liars? And then send it on? Isn't that a lie of commission? Well, at least you'll have something to tell the father at confessional.

That's when he gets mad.
 
2013-06-25 01:21:29 PM

DamnYankees: mattharvest: All laws have to, at least, meet Rational Basis scrutiny,

This is only true for equal protection cases. Go to law school.


That's not quite true.  Rational basis scrutiny is not just applied to equal protection cases - it is used in certain due process cases, and sometimes in other contexts as well.  Carolene Products (which basically set forth the framework for rational basis/intermediate/strict scrutiny) dealt with New Deal econimc legislation that had nothing to do with equal protection.  Hell, rational basis analysis (though not framed as such) can be traced as far back as McCulloch ("If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance"), which certainly had nothing to do with equal protection.
 
2013-06-25 01:22:13 PM

flondrix: And there are so many scattered throughout New England!  I had no idea it was so much of an issue there.


Oh, you didn't know the Act affected New England? Why it sure did. Past tense-because if you can go a stretch of 10 years without, you know, trying to screw over any minorities, it turns out that you get out of the whole Section 4/Section 5 thing pretty easily.

Maine had 18 towns that fell under pre-approval status, all of which got this "bailout," as it's called, in 1976. Three Connecticut towns got the bailout in 1984.

And yes, even Massachusetts had towns covered by the formula: Amherst, Ayer, Belchertown, Bourne, Harvard, Sandwich, Shirley, Sunderland, and Wrentham. They all got the bailout in 1983.

The last remaining New England laggards were 10 small New Hampshire towns: Antrim, Benton, Boscawen, Millsfield, Newington, Pinkham's Grant, Rindge, Stewartstown, Stratford, and Unity. Link
 
2013-06-25 01:22:30 PM
As a former DJ, it was a common joke in our time that certain songs such as "American Pie" and "Freebird" were saved for when the DJ had a take a looooogn ginormous shiat. Still always think that when they come on.
 
2013-06-25 01:23:59 PM

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: I don't think the Feds have the Constitutional authority for such oversight. Expediency doesn't make the founding document irrelevant

Which parts of Article 4 and the 14th and 15th Amendments are giving you trouble? Or are you spouting off without reading the document you are citing?



Rock, rock on, man!

/NOT sarcasm
 
2013-06-25 01:24:01 PM

Kangaroo_Ralph: Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.


Great idea! Since retired seniors don't pay payroll taxes and represent the largest section of those that pay no net income tax they'd be the largest group to lose the right to vote. Once the large numbers of seniors lose their right to vote progressive change will be much easier to accomplish. The GOP would be completely marginalized and the conservative movement utterly hamstrung since a big section of their base would lose the right to vote.
 
2013-06-25 01:24:41 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-25 01:26:14 PM

Oxygen_Thief: well for one I don't care to research for you...I explained that even in the cases you cited you are not applying the correct legal standard.  So go ahead make the argument and call your malpractice carrier.


No, you didn't.  You didn't explain any such thing.  You cannot cite a single case,  ever, that supports your claims.  I have cited the two literally defining cases on this issue, both of which stand for my proposition and in direct disagreement with your baseless claims.

Don't couch your laziness in not wanting to do research; you're the one making the claim (that the standard is limited to a certain subset of cases), and you're the one with the burden of argument.  You're not meeting any burden, and you're trying to pretend you're doing it out of principle.  If your argument was so sound, you'd be readily able to find the cases you need.

You're confused by the fact that rational basis is the starting point for Equal Protection cases involving non-suspect classifications, and as a result you're bizarrely claiming then that a law that doesn't violate Equal Protection would somehow not have to past rational basis.

That doesn't change the fact that it's the standard the Court has also applied in non-Equal Protection cases.
 
2013-06-25 01:27:00 PM
If I can try to find one silver lining from this ruling it might be that the ruling will help ensure that the small, reasonable voice within the Republican party arguing that the best strategy is to embrace demographic trends will roundly ignored and RINOed out of existence over the next few years.  The party will then cement itself, even more openly, as the party of discrimination and white privilege, but will then be completely irrelevant after the next census.  Then we can have debates between Democrats and reasonable conservatives/centrists, and actually get some shia done.

Will be a tough ride until then.
 
2013-06-25 01:28:34 PM

Somacandra: As a former DJ, it was a common joke in our time that certain songs such as "American Pie" and "Freebird" were saved for when the DJ had a take a looooogn ginormous shiat. Still always think that when they come on.


Stairway to Heaven, too. I haven't called it by its correct title in years- it's always DJTakeAshiatSong.
 
2013-06-25 01:29:12 PM

BinderWoman: I'm seeing her in concert Friday night. Maybe she'll take requests.


If she does, throw out 'then came the last days of may" by BOC.  I think she could do well with it.

That said, SLAVERY!
 
2013-06-25 01:30:53 PM
Within two hours of the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act, Greg Abbott, the attorney general for the state of Texas, announced that a voter identification law that was blocked last year by the Justice Department would go into effect. Link
 
2013-06-25 01:32:41 PM
People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.
 
2013-06-25 01:36:45 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Within two hours of the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act, Greg Abbott, the attorney general for the state of Texas, announced that a voter identification law that was blocked last year by the Justice Department would go into effect. Link


*libertarians applauding this further deprivation of liberty*
 
2013-06-25 01:37:11 PM

rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.


Dropping a "n" bomb on someone who is black is gonna be seen as racist. That might not be your intent, but that is what it is.
 
2013-06-25 01:38:46 PM
So the local radio station here in my part of Texas is reporting that the Texas AG just ordered the voter ID law to go into effect immediately as a result of the ruling.  So Texas is now a voter ID state as of today apparently...   And I should add that I support the voter ID law.

/Yay!
 
2013-06-25 01:38:55 PM

rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.


The idea that you'd use the n-word in the same breath as calling other people 'assholes' and implying they're either racists or complicit in racism is baffling.  You've done nothing to have the right to use a phrase like that while criticizing others' on their views on race.

Did you read the opinion?  Do you have a clue how the arguments proceeded?  Do you know anything here of substance?  Do you have anything to offer except vitriol?
 
2013-06-25 01:38:56 PM

cman: rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.

Dropping a "n" bomb on someone who is black is gonna be seen as racist. That might not be your intent, but that is what it is.


I thought he was talking about Thomas's frequent nagging.
 
2013-06-25 01:39:33 PM

rewind2846: People my father's age marched a fought and died so that those after them could have the right to vote.
And now this supreme court has just sh*t on their entire lives, setting the clock back to 1965... again. Section four was put there for a purpose, and that purpose, as evidenced by the elections of 2008, 2010, and 2012, still exists. I would expect people like that asshole Roberts to vote against it, as if it were up to people like him grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests would have been standard procedure for exercising the vote long ago.

But for that house n****r Thomas, who of all people should know better, there is no excuse.
 F*ck him.


Dude, seriously? I don't agree with his opinion in this case in the slightest, but there's no excuse for dropping racial epithets. None.
 
2013-06-25 01:40:12 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.


I do and it should. I hope it will be. I doubt it.
 
2013-06-25 01:42:31 PM

Maul555: So the local radio station here in my part of Texas is reporting that the Texas AG just ordered the voter ID law to go into effect immediately as a result of the ruling.  So Texas is now a voter ID state as of today apparently...   And I should add that I support the voter ID law.

/Yay!


North Carolina too:

http://www.wral.com/nc-senator-voter-id-bill-moving-ahead-with-rulin g/ 12591669/
 
2013-06-25 01:42:38 PM

TheMysticS: Somacandra: As a former DJ, it was a common joke in our time that certain songs such as "American Pie" and "Freebird" were saved for when the DJ had a take a looooogn ginormous shiat. Still always think that when they come on.

Stairway to Heaven, too. I haven't called it by its correct title in years- it's always DJTakeAshiatSong.


I always used the version of Do You Feel Like I Do from Frampton Comes Alive when I needed some bathroom time. That or Close to the Edge.
 
2013-06-25 01:48:23 PM
Describing the ruling as a "setback,"

Well now son, that depends.  You see if you are a racist fark, a member of the KKK (but I repeat myself) or any other white supremacist organization and you live in a red state south of the Mason Dixon then, this is just leveling out the scale a tad.

"Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to the current conditions," said Chief Justice John Roberts,Lisa Franks who wrote the court's decision for the majority. Unicorn and Rainbow club.

Congress, you mean the Criminal Class?   FWIW, Congress can't pass a turd.
You folks are so screwed.  The line at the bus station should be/ought to be huge tomorrow
 
2013-06-25 01:51:33 PM
Interesting - it may not be re-established, at best, until 2021.  That's a long time.
 
2013-06-25 01:51:41 PM

CheatCommando: Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.


Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.


what was that about infroming yourself on a topic?
 
2013-06-25 01:56:39 PM

basemetal: [wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 625x417]


The "artist" misspelled "unemployed".
 
2013-06-25 01:58:14 PM

skullkrusher: CheatCommando: Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.

Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.


what was that about infroming yourself on a topic?


Still dodging the "didn't bother to read what I was citing before I posted" thing, I see. It's a short document. You have no legitimate excuse.
 
2013-06-25 02:01:02 PM

MCStymie: skullkrusher: Hobodeluxe: I see your true colors shining through

That's Cyndi Lauper, not Skynyrd.

Have to wonder what a Skynyrd cover of "True Colors" would sound like, though.


Pure garbage-juice.
 
2013-06-25 02:01:30 PM

Thrag: Kangaroo_Ralph: Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.

Great idea! Since retired seniors don't pay payroll taxes and represent the largest section of those that pay no net income tax they'd be the largest group to lose the right to vote. Once the large numbers of seniors lose their right to vote progressive change will be much easier to accomplish. The GOP would be completely marginalized and the conservative movement utterly hamstrung since a big section of their base would lose the right to vote.


Meanwhile, most immigrants do pay taxes.  Even illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes.  Should we give them the vote?
 
2013-06-25 02:06:55 PM

Somacandra: To The Escape Zeppelin!: My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.

I do and it should. I hope it will be. I doubt it.


It does.  As shown on one of the maps earlier, a bunch of counties all over the north used to be subject to oversight, but cleaned up their act and qualified to be taken off of the list.  There is no reason the south could not do likewise.
 
2013-06-25 02:22:10 PM

UNC_Samurai: It means a number of state legislatures will be able to enact a handful of voting measures that the feds will have to fix after the fact.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge step backwards, but try telling that to someone who has trouble voting as a result.


Except that the court challenges can be longer than the terms of the federal legislators, which means you can tip the scales even farther.

We really need a better voting practices, probably in the form of an amendment, but there are so many things wrong with our system you could never fix all the problems- racial and economic discrimination, disenfranchisement of felons (which, because our court systems are biased amplify racism and economic discrimination, aside from the fact that it probably plays a role in our prison state mentality), lobbying reform, the way we over-represent tiny states voting power in the number of House Reps and Electoral College votes relative to their actual population, wildly different rules to get on the ballot from state to state, campaign finance reform...
 
2013-06-25 02:25:15 PM

flondrix: Somacandra: To The Escape Zeppelin!: My point was that racism and suppressing voting rights is not something limited to the South. If you really think it's a worthwhile law then it should be applied to the whole country.

I do and it should. I hope it will be. I doubt it.

It does.  As shown on one of the maps earlier, a bunch of counties all over the north used to be subject to oversight, but cleaned up their act and qualified to be taken off of the list.  There is no reason the south could not do likewise.


Sure there is. They may be incapable of stopping the racists from passing discriminatory bills.
 
2013-06-25 02:31:17 PM
Y'know, that whole "emancipation proclamation" is 150 years old. Why don't we get rid of that, too, you f**king morons? >:-(

We don't really need that either.
 
2013-06-25 02:41:24 PM

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: CheatCommando: Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.

Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.


what was that about infroming yourself on a topic?

Still dodging the "didn't bother to read what I was citing before I posted" thing, I see. It's a short document. You have no legitimate excuse.


Dodging? I already admitted I was incorrect. Is there something wrong with you? Still dodging the fact that you didn't care to understand my "agenda" or lack thereof despite the fact it was clearly stated before you even made your comments all the while demanding I admit my mistake while I already have... another thing you'd know if you'd taken your own advice?

That pretty much sums up your self-flagellation?
 
2013-06-25 02:43:35 PM

runin800m: Can they apply levy taxes against particular states while not on others?


Section 8, clause 1:  "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The "uniform" part mentions "duties, imposts and excises" but not "taxes".  Meaningless to the average guy, but lawyers love to play games with such things.
 
2013-06-25 02:57:56 PM

skullkrusher: CheatCommando: skullkrusher: CheatCommando: Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.

Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.


what was that about infroming yourself on a topic?

Still dodging the "didn't bother to read what I was citing before I posted" thing, I see. It's a short document. You have no legitimate excuse.

Dodging? I already admitted I was incorrect. Is there something wrong with you? Still dodging the fact that you didn't care to understand my "agenda" or lack thereof despite the fact it was clearly stated before you even made your comments all the while demanding I admit my mistake while I already have... another thing you'd know if you'd taken your own advice?

That pretty much sums up your self-flagellation?


I gave two options - one that you were putting agenda before facts OR that you were intellectually lazy. You have not addressed number 2 at all.
 
2013-06-25 03:00:51 PM

CheatCommando: skullkrusher: CheatCommando: skullkrusher: CheatCommando: Not taking a look before posting something directly contradictory of its actual wording smacks of "agenda first, facts second" reasoning or just plain intellectual laziness.

Full disclosure - I don't give a fark if Alabama has to clear their voting procedures with the feds. More legit voters voting is better than less. The bureaucratic hoops Georgia needs to jump through doesn't concern me.


what was that about infroming yourself on a topic?

Still dodging the "didn't bother to read what I was citing before I posted" thing, I see. It's a short document. You have no legitimate excuse.

Dodging? I already admitted I was incorrect. Is there something wrong with you? Still dodging the fact that you didn't care to understand my "agenda" or lack thereof despite the fact it was clearly stated before you even made your comments all the while demanding I admit my mistake while I already have... another thing you'd know if you'd taken your own advice?

That pretty much sums up your self-flagellation?

I gave two options - one that you were putting agenda before facts OR that you were intellectually lazy. You have not addressed number 2 at all.


I've been addressing number 2 for a number of posts now.
 
Displayed 50 of 637 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report