Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   "Scott Walker doesn't decide who deserves a vote" Except that he did up until a few days ago   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 72
    More: Interesting, Pat McCrory, vote, state House  
•       •       •

1817 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 May 2014 at 10:30 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-01 08:27:31 AM  
It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.
 
2014-05-01 09:28:25 AM  

SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.


They still want representative democracy.  But it's pay for play - you have to buy your representation.
 
2014-05-01 09:41:20 AM  

SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.


You can't have democracy without the full representation of the people either.

SCOTUS is already trying to set a precedent that racial discrimination doesn't exist in 2014, probably so they can legalize voter ID laws. Followed a day later by old white guys going on the air saying 'bring back slavery'.

It boggles the mind that people are so f*cking stupid. And it sure seems like that stupid is growing.
 
2014-05-01 10:38:32 AM  

SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.


You can have a representative democracy without universal suffrage.

That's how our worked for the longest time.
 
2014-05-01 10:39:24 AM  
it is nice to see their disenfranchisement efforts fail but they'll keep at it.
 
2014-05-01 10:39:27 AM  

SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.


"Freedom for me, but not for thee" is kind of the motto of the Republican party, though. They just don't give a flying f*ck about the freedoms or rights of anyone but themselves.
 
2014-05-01 10:40:09 AM  

bdub77: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

You can't have democracy without the full representation of the people either.

SCOTUS is already trying to set a precedent that racial discrimination doesn't exist in 2014, probably so they can legalize voter ID laws. Followed a day later by old white guys going on the air saying 'bring back slavery'.

It boggles the mind that people are so f*cking stupid. And it sure seems like that stupid is growing.


It's sort of akin to the anti-vaxxer "debate". You go so long without an obvious problem, though a more subversive threat still exists, you think the problem is cured or at least try to convince others to that perspective. At that point, you want to cure the solution even if the issues the solution creates are relatively minor.
 
2014-05-01 10:41:07 AM  
I've followed US politics for many years (thankfully) as an outsider.  It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the only thing that's keeping the US from entering full oligarchy mode is that there are still justices left from before the nation went insane to strike down silly legislation like this.  If, for some reason, US continues along this path for another couple of decades, those judges will have all been replaced with ones that will allow money to legislate without any interference.
 
2014-05-01 10:42:07 AM  
This is one of the rare times I side with most liberals on an issue.  There is far too much bullshiat and manufactured crisis coming from Republicans on this.

/born and bred Wisconsinite, and I vote third party
 
2014-05-01 10:42:13 AM  

bdub77: It boggles the mind that people are so f*cking stupid. And it sure seems like that stupid is growing.


I don't think it's stupidity, I think it's selfish, lazy arrogance. The republican party is full of people who are angry and scared that the world changed around them and instead of adjusting their own lives to the new realities of that world they just want somebody to coo over them and blame it all on someone else. All your problems can be traced to gays, gun-grabbers, black people, illegal immigrants, Muslims, etc. etc. etc. So vote for me and I promise I'll put those uppity people in their places!

We're at a juncture where we're effectively in a battle to determine whether or not we put our blinders on, turn around and march back toward the past and into irrelevance and obscurity as a nation or if we grow a pair and blaze forward, adapting to the new realities of a world that isn't going to stop for us no matter how often Bill O'Reilly or Scott Walker or any other recalcitrant ass screams at it.

I think in the end the recalcitrant asses will lose, it's just going to take a lot of screaming, crying, kicking and fussing before it happens because they're going to make it as painful as possible just because they can.
 
2014-05-01 10:43:49 AM  
this reminds me, I have to get a new driver's license since I moved. It used to be all I had to do was register the new address with the DMV but now that I have to show i.d. to vote and they match it to the address on my voter's registration card it costs me $20 to buy an updated driver's license
 
2014-05-01 10:44:00 AM  

Kome: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

"Freedom for me, but not for thee" is kind of the motto of the Republican party, though. They just don't give a flying f*ck about the freedoms or rights of anyone but themselves.


We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.

Women, blacks, native savages, immigrants, and those who aren't rich aren't "men," of course.

/this isn't a new thing, guys
 
2014-05-01 10:44:37 AM  
FTA In both cases, judges based their ruling on one basic fact: laws like these prevent a huge number of people from voting, without solving any real problem.

The judges are wrong though.  The problem they solve is poor urbans voting in too large of numbers.  And for Republicans that's a real problem.
 
2014-05-01 10:45:48 AM  

sendtodave: You can have a representative democracy without universal suffrage.


And if there's one part that's all about making as many people suffer as possible, it's the GOP.
 
2014-05-01 10:52:06 AM  

sendtodave: Kome: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

"Freedom for me, but not for thee" is kind of the motto of the Republican party, though. They just don't give a flying f*ck about the freedoms or rights of anyone but themselves.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.

Women, blacks, native savages, immigrants, and those who aren't rich aren't "men," of course.

/this isn't a new thing, guys


And? We've remedied that, but a certain political group is trying to reinstate restrictions.
 
2014-05-01 10:52:21 AM  
As someone who lived in WI for my first 36 yrs of life, there are different areas of the state. There is Madison and the city of Milwaukee which is pretty liberal and mostly made up of normal people who just want to work, watch sports, drink beer, hang out with friends and family. Then there is the rest of the state which is the same until Obama became president and every racial feeling they heard growing up in east bumfark came true and they jumped to reclaim their 1950's mentality. This is a place where the WELS church states that women must submit to their husbands, gays are killing the world, and every election season would have sermons saying we can't tell you who to vote for but voting for people that believe in gay marriage/abortion/and not defending our countries borders is a sin and you will go to hell for voting that way. That was the point when I said to the wife I'm done going to church and wouldnt have our son take part in this assbackwards way of thinking. /CSB/ My favorite moment was during Q & A with the pastor right before election day 2008 he gave a full on dont vote for a dem candidate sermon but made it vague enough to not use Obama's name but everyone knew what was going on. I wrote a question asking if we were to follow the bible to word why did we have a shrimp dinner fundraiser the weekend before when eating shellfish is a sin. Pastor laughed it off and said we must have the devil in our presence as only the devil would cloud our minds with such lies.
 
2014-05-01 10:54:02 AM  
"could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

Just like they cannot point to a single instance of mandating the use of the transvaginal wand helping anyone, or a single instance of having abortion providers maintaining admitting privileges at a local hospitals saving someone's life.

But that won't keep the low infromation Fox viewer from lapping up the derp and voting -R every election because libs.
 
2014-05-01 10:54:04 AM  

SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.


Party of "Freedom" appears to be anything but. Limits on voting, abortion, full on support for spying on Americans and against repeal of marijuana laws to name a few but they are for relaxing the definition of rape so they do support some freedoms.
 
2014-05-01 10:57:01 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: Kome: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

"Freedom for me, but not for thee" is kind of the motto of the Republican party, though. They just don't give a flying f*ck about the freedoms or rights of anyone but themselves.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.

Women, blacks, native savages, immigrants, and those who aren't rich aren't "men," of course.

/this isn't a new thing, guys

And? We've remedied that, but a certain political group is trying to reinstate restrictions.


So, on a long time scale, the belief in universal suffrage may have just been a small blip (as opposed to inevitable progress).
 
2014-05-01 10:57:42 AM  

SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.


Hell. They want to remove "Democracy" too. Gerrymandering is proof of their belief that they know that they cannot win elections fairly (because who in their right mind wants to vote for people who do nothing but inflict misery and injustice on their own citizens?), so they have to rig the sh*t out of the things in order to keep themselves in power.
 
2014-05-01 10:57:55 AM  
For years, this has been painfully obvious; even the most comprehensive, number-fudging conservative attempts to prove the vast scale of in-person voter fraud end up showing its insignificance.

This statement is either mind-blowingly stupid, or a deliberate misrepresentation of the problem of election fraud.

Fraud doesn't matter in cases where large-scale efforts would be required to swing election results. If your candidate is down by twenty points in the polls on election day, the amount of fraud required to swing the result would be extraordinarily difficult to arrange, and effectively impossible to hide.

Vote fraud matters in nail-biter elections where a difference of a few dozen votes can change the result. 50 fraudulent votes out of 100,000 total may seem insignificant (only 0.05% of ballots cast), but if the margin of victory is less than those fifty votes, then the significance of those fraudulent votes is tremendous.
 
2014-05-01 10:59:37 AM  

sendtodave: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

You can have a representative democracy without universal suffrage.

That's how our worked for the longest time.


What's your point, exactly? The earth used to be a seething cauldron of toxic molten rock and metal. Doesn't mean that's the best way to run a planet.
 
2014-05-01 10:59:44 AM  

Cybernetic: but if the margin of victory is less than those fifty votes


There would be an automatic recount, opening up every vote to increased scrutiny. Voter ID is unnecessary to the process.
 
2014-05-01 11:01:26 AM  

Trainspotr: sendtodave: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

You can have a representative democracy without universal suffrage.

That's how our worked for the longest time.

What's your point, exactly? The earth used to be a seething cauldron of toxic molten rock and metal. Doesn't mean that's the best way to run a planet.


How we expect things should be isn't necessarily how they will be?  In fact, it's pretty rare?
 
2014-05-01 11:02:33 AM  

Cybernetic: For years, this has been painfully obvious; even the most comprehensive, number-fudging conservative attempts to prove the vast scale of in-person voter fraud end up showing its insignificance.

This statement is either mind-blowingly stupid, or a deliberate misrepresentation of the problem of election fraud.

Fraud doesn't matter in cases where large-scale efforts would be required to swing election results. If your candidate is down by twenty points in the polls on election day, the amount of fraud required to swing the result would be extraordinarily difficult to arrange, and effectively impossible to hide.

Vote fraud matters in nail-biter elections where a difference of a few dozen votes can change the result. 50 fraudulent votes out of 100,000 total may seem insignificant (only 0.05% of ballots cast), but if the margin of victory is less than those fifty votes, then the significance of those fraudulent votes is tremendous.


Are you worried about electronic voting machines, which have higher error rates than old paper voting machines?
 
2014-05-01 11:02:39 AM  

sendtodave: HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: Kome: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

"Freedom for me, but not for thee" is kind of the motto of the Republican party, though. They just don't give a flying f*ck about the freedoms or rights of anyone but themselves.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.

Women, blacks, native savages, immigrants, and those who aren't rich aren't "men," of course.

/this isn't a new thing, guys

And? We've remedied that, but a certain political group is trying to reinstate restrictions.

So, on a long time scale, the belief in universal suffrage may have just been a small blip (as opposed to inevitable progress).


No, it's really just a regressive political party that sees demographic doom in their near future that has eschewed these values.
 
2014-05-01 11:02:42 AM  

Diogenes: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

They still want representative democracy.  But it's pay for play - you have to buy your representation.


A representation poll tax?
 
2014-05-01 11:04:25 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: Kome: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

"Freedom for me, but not for thee" is kind of the motto of the Republican party, though. They just don't give a flying f*ck about the freedoms or rights of anyone but themselves.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.

Women, blacks, native savages, immigrants, and those who aren't rich aren't "men," of course.

/this isn't a new thing, guys

And? We've remedied that, but a certain political group is trying to reinstate restrictions.

So, on a long time scale, the belief in universal suffrage may have just been a small blip (as opposed to inevitable progress).

No, it's really just a regressive political party that sees demographic doom in their near future that has eschewed these values.


Hope so.
 
2014-05-01 11:04:43 AM  
but this March, Walker signed a new bill radically curtailing early voting,  .

Most of us know the real purpose of shortening voting hours and early voting. WTF do the Republicans who push these changes claim the reason is though? There's no farking way that cutting the time people have to vote can be justified as preserving the integrity of the vote. That makes no sense at all. So what other reason do they give for doing it? They can't just come right out and say, "we want fewer minorities and urban poor voting".
 
2014-05-01 11:05:28 AM  

sendtodave: Trainspotr: sendtodave: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

You can have a representative democracy without universal suffrage.

That's how our worked for the longest time.

What's your point, exactly? The earth used to be a seething cauldron of toxic molten rock and metal. Doesn't mean that's the best way to run a planet.

How we expect things should be isn't necessarily how they will be?  In fact, it's pretty rare?


seecolombia.travel
 
2014-05-01 11:05:45 AM  
Will there always be Scott Walkers in positions of power?

Or, at least, for the next generation or so?
 
2014-05-01 11:06:02 AM  

SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.


That's not the freedums they're talking about.    They need the freedums not to be gay-married.  They need the freedums of un-forced abortions.  They need the freedums of standing their ground against federal officers without recourse, and the freedums to 'proudly' fly that federal flag on horseback through federal land while denouncing the existence and authority of that federal government.  They need the freedums to call a Ni-Boing a Ni-Boing without reprecussions from Ni-Boing supporters.   And they need the freedums to pay you a dime if they think you're worth that much.

You know, all those freedums they lost when the darkies took over.
 
2014-05-01 11:08:24 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Hell. They want to remove "Democracy" too. Gerrymandering is proof of their belief that they know that they cannot win elections fairly (because who in their right mind wants to vote for people who do nothing but inflict misery and injustice on their own citizens?), so they have to rig the sh*t out of the things in order to keep themselves in power.


Gerrymandering cuts both ways.
 
2014-05-01 11:09:41 AM  

Trainspotr: sendtodave: Trainspotr: sendtodave: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

You can have a representative democracy without universal suffrage.

That's how our worked for the longest time.

What's your point, exactly? The earth used to be a seething cauldron of toxic molten rock and metal. Doesn't mean that's the best way to run a planet.

How we expect things should be isn't necessarily how they will be?  In fact, it's pretty rare?

[seecolombia.travel image 500x365]


Fine.  Put another way, what makes you think that things will be run in the best way?  That the guys with power even WANT to run things in the best, most equitable way?

Seems that the Scott Walkers of the world, and those that support them, no not want or benefit from equality, in this example.
 
2014-05-01 11:11:28 AM  
FTFA: In both cases, judges based their ruling on one basic fact: laws like these prevent a huge number of people from voting, without solving any real problem.

Judge Lynn Adelson, who overturned the Wisconsin law, said that the law could block some 300,000 people, disproportionately black and Latino, from voting, and that the state's claimed interest in the law didn't come close to justifying that kind of burden: "the defendants," Adelson wrote, "could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."


The thing the judge doesn't understand is that to Republicans it does solve a problem. To the Republicans, 300,000 black and Latino people voting is a HUGE problem. I know to normal people that viewpoint is sort of reprehensible on a scale of Donald Sterling proportions, and the rational response would be to actually be more sensitive and accommodating to the 300,000 black and Latino voters. Unfortunately it appears that the alternative choice of being more sensitive and accommodating to the 300,000 black and Latino voters, is sadly just as equally reprehensible to Republicans.
 
2014-05-01 11:11:29 AM  

MJMaloney187: TV's Vinnie: Hell. They want to remove "Democracy" too. Gerrymandering is proof of their belief that they know that they cannot win elections fairly (because who in their right mind wants to vote for people who do nothing but inflict misery and injustice on their own citizens?), so they have to rig the sh*t out of the things in order to keep themselves in power.

Gerrymandering cuts both ways.


It's more beneficial for the party that would not win otherwise.

The assumption is that is the Republicans, in the large majority of cases.
 
2014-05-01 11:14:06 AM  
Democracy is too important to be left to the people...
 
2014-05-01 11:19:02 AM  
sendtodave:

Fine.  Put another way, what makes you think that things will be run in the best way?  That the guys with power even WANT to run things in the best, most equitable way?

Seems that the Scott Walkers of the world, and those that support them, no not want or benefit from equality, in this example.


I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to claim that there was nothing wrong with trying to disenfranchise Americans, because Americans used to be disenfranchised.
 
2014-05-01 11:27:00 AM  
We had this thread already this week. Scott Walker is a piece of shiat. Republicans like him are pieces of shiat.
 
2014-05-01 11:28:39 AM  

Trainspotr: sendtodave:

Fine.  Put another way, what makes you think that things will be run in the best way?  That the guys with power even WANT to run things in the best, most equitable way?

Seems that the Scott Walkers of the world, and those that support them, no not want or benefit from equality, in this example.

I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to claim that there was nothing wrong with trying to disenfranchise Americans, because Americans used to be disenfranchised.


I'm a cynic.  I expect wrong, immoral, evil things to happen.  Again, and again, and again.

I do not believe in sustainable progress.

...

Maybe I'm just hungry, and my blood sugar is low.
 
2014-05-01 11:30:13 AM  

heavymetal: FTFA: In both cases, judges based their ruling on one basic fact: laws like these prevent a huge number of people from voting, without solving any real problem.

Judge Lynn Adelson, who overturned the Wisconsin law, said that the law could block some 300,000 people, disproportionately black and Latino, from voting, and that the state's claimed interest in the law didn't come close to justifying that kind of burden: "the defendants," Adelson wrote, "could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

The thing the judge doesn't understand is that to Republicans it does solve a problem. To the Republicans, 300,000 black and Latino people voting is a HUGE problem. I know to normal people that viewpoint is sort of reprehensible on a scale of Donald Sterling proportions, and the rational response would be to actually be more sensitive and accommodating to the 300,000 black and Latino voters. Unfortunately it appears that the alternative choice of being more sensitive and accommodating to the 300,000 black and Latino voters, is sadly just as equally reprehensible to Republicans.


Donald Sterling says you can sleep with them but just don't bring them to my voting both.
 
2014-05-01 11:32:16 AM  

Lord_Baull: "could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

Just like they cannot point to a single instance of mandating the use of the transvaginal wand helping anyone, or a single instance of having abortion providers maintaining admitting privileges at a local hospitals saving someone's life.

But that won't keep the low infromation Fox viewer from lapping up the derp and voting -R every election because libs.


I can't point to a single instance of someone setting off a nuke in the middle of a city, that doesn't mean there aren't laws to prevent it.

/Prepare for the worst, pray for the best.
 
2014-05-01 11:35:18 AM  

sendtodave: Trainspotr: sendtodave:

Fine.  Put another way, what makes you think that things will be run in the best way?  That the guys with power even WANT to run things in the best, most equitable way?

Seems that the Scott Walkers of the world, and those that support them, no not want or benefit from equality, in this example.

I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to claim that there was nothing wrong with trying to disenfranchise Americans, because Americans used to be disenfranchised.

I'm a cynic.  I expect wrong, immoral, evil things to happen.  Again, and again, and again.

I do not believe in sustainable progress.

...

Maybe I'm just hungry, and my blood sugar is low.


It's tough to not be cynical these days. However, this is one instance in which the checks and balances seem to have worked out the way they were intended. Progress is slow and messy, but it's possible.
 
2014-05-01 11:38:17 AM  
I'm convinced that only people who don't or won't understand numbers insist on voter ID laws. It is very simple:

How many people will end up not voting as a result?
How many people have fraudulently voted?

The answer to the second question has repeatedly been in the real of rounding error, almost nothing compared to the voter population. But the first question is tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people depending on the state. Therefore the voter ID create a huge and different problem (fewer votes) while not fixing anything that's wrong in the first place.

I wish this debate would just go away for the time being.
 
2014-05-01 11:47:40 AM  
alowishus:
I can't point to a single instance of someone setting off a nuke in the middle of a city, that doesn't mean there aren't laws to prevent it.

Wait, there are? Well fark. There goes my weekend.
 
2014-05-01 11:50:29 AM  

MJMaloney187: TV's Vinnie: Hell. They want to remove "Democracy" too. Gerrymandering is proof of their belief that they know that they cannot win elections fairly (because who in their right mind wants to vote for people who do nothing but inflict misery and injustice on their own citizens?), so they have to rig the sh*t out of the things in order to keep themselves in power.

Gerrymandering cuts both ways.


But not as deep as GOP gerrymandering. You can easily spot the places there the blah people live (hint: NOT in the zones the republicans want voting for them).
 
2014-05-01 11:58:06 AM  

alowishus: I can't point to a single instance of someone setting off a nuke in the middle of a city, that doesn't mean there aren't laws to prevent it.


Haz a sad:
img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-05-01 12:04:44 PM  

alowishus: Lord_Baull: "could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

Just like they cannot point to a single instance of mandating the use of the transvaginal wand helping anyone, or a single instance of having abortion providers maintaining admitting privileges at a local hospitals saving someone's life.

But that won't keep the low infromation Fox viewer from lapping up the derp and voting -R every election because libs.

I can't point to a single instance of someone setting off a nuke in the middle of a city, that doesn't mean there aren't laws to prevent it.

/Prepare for the worst, pray for the best.



There are laws against setting off nukes in the middle of a city?
 
2014-05-01 12:33:03 PM  

bdub77: SphericalTime: It is very sad that Republicans want to remove "representative" from "representative democracy." You'd think the party of FREEDOM(tm) would support the freedom to vote.

You can't have democracy without the full representation of the people either.

SCOTUS is already trying to set a precedent that racial discrimination doesn't exist in 2014, probably so they can legalize voter ID laws. Followed a day later by old white guys going on the air saying 'bring back slavery'.

It boggles the mind that people are so f*cking stupid. And it sure seems like that stupid is growing.


Ditzy morons like Chris Matthews and the knuckledragging, sheltered children in adult bodies who took him seriously when he declared racism dead in the US after Obama was elected need to tazed until the stupid is gone.
 
2014-05-01 12:43:38 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Democracy is too important to be left to the people...


THIS!

The real reason the GOP has a hardon for Obama isnt because he's black, isnt because he's a Democrat.

Its because he wasnt their choice. Promises were made and the fix was in. But the big money didnt get their say.

They cant have the People picking their leaders. It sets a bad precedent.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report