Well, I’m not going to plow through all the oh-my-god-look-what-(a)-republican(s)-did threads to find it, but one of them had to do with Republicans obeying the law, and the story was spun as though they were criminals. It called the law they were obeying “arcane” or “archaic” or something like that, and made it sound like the Republicans were going to be at polling places in black boots and uniforms demanding to see everyone’s papers. It really is amazing what a bit of spin will do. Thus is born the notion that a man who has been kicked can be accused of striking someone’s foot with his leg. I don’t support this man or this woman. I’m just ranting about political spin. But I wanted to be lighthearted about it so people wouldn’t get so upset.
Worked as well as ever! 
Daniel
The Republican party is organizing people to suppress the vote in Democratic precints.
The Democratic party is not organizing people to kick others in the shins.
The one that proudly proclaims that it’s “compassionate”, you mean? Yup, a shame.
You know better.
But of the cases I mention, one has been discontinued, and one is technically legal - certainly you can’t accuse someone of criminal disenfranchisement for anal-retentively enforcing the law.
Point me at criminal acts and I’ll be happy to comment, and, if appropriate, condemn.
Now, see, that’s just spin. Suppressing votes is illegal. Like I said in the other thread, if you’re so alarmed about the lawful acts they’re going to do, then go in there yourself and protect the hapless people you believe will fall prey to Republican tactics. You can invoke the same “arcane” law as they.
Well, I mean, hell. Sometimes I wonder whether the Internet has helped in preventing 1960s-type protests and riots. People get to come here and spout off annonymously at people they don’t know, and so maybe by the end of the day, they’re too tired to take to the streets.
I point you at the felon list that was skewed to favor Republicans heavily. Yes, it’s been discontinued; at the same time, it was an action by Republican officials that may well have been intended to be an illegal subversion of the democratic process. Will you condemn the Republican party for that?
The problem with these things, of course, is that it’s hard to find them while they’re going on. But sometimes you can catch them in the act.
You can also listen to a This American Life story about vote fraud and intimidation. I wish I could find the text of it; they talked about one case in which an unindicted co-conspirator was one of Bush’s top campaign strategists. Anyone have the lowdown on this? I’m at work, or I’d listen to the story and give you the details.
Here’s some information about what’s going on in West Virginia.
And remember: these appear to be cases of serious crimes committed by members of the Republican party, acting in their job capacities. That’s very different from what a couple buffoons do at a restaurant.
Daniel
Nah–I’m satisfied with two judges telling them that their plan was illegal. Course, that’s just my pansy-ass liberal spin on things.
Daniel
- The Republicans are not denying their voter suppression efforts, so it’s hardly “just spin” that they are sending people to the polls to challenge voters, slow down the lines, etc.
- Suppressing votes is possible. Nuff said.
- This is completely stupid. I, in my hometown, thousands of miles from Florida, am supposed to show up at every precint in Florida to “protect the hepless people” who fall prey to GOP voter suppression tactics? Dems are (as I have pointed out) sending volunteers to the polls. Me? I have to work. My having to work is not proof that I’m wrong.
You can defend voter suppression all you want, but don’t blame it on Democrats for allowing it to happen. They are doing everything they can to prevent it.
Damn, you people are going to need a gyroscope. The court ruled that the law itself is unconstitutional, not that their plan was illegal. Making plans was completely legal, but now carrying out their plan depends on court rulings. The leftist source you cited, Yahoo!, does not report whether the ruling will be appealed.
Yahoo! is a leftist source?
Fuck, where’s that guy selling the scorecards?
(bolding mine)
Wait a minute! Since when is showing people his shirt “openly goading”? Since when is expression of an opinion via apparel tantamount to inciting violence?
Even if the wearer was being an asshole, does kicking him make you better? :rolleyes:
A hearty thanks to the usual cadre who came into yet another thread with their truckload of unrelated shite.
I’m afraid all we have here are the identities of two participants in what would likely be a wildly successful grudgefuck.
This thread was already about unrelated shite.
Dick Gephardt said once that politics is a substitute for violence. This kind of thing, relatively minor though it was, illustrates some of what he was talking about. So many people on both sides are so furious at what they perceive will happen if the other side wins that they despise each other and it leads to stuff like this. Imagine what would happen if we didn’t have a political process that settles these things peaceably among the populace in general.
A leftist source? Of course, of course.
Of course it is a leftist source.
It doesn’t give the whole court spiel.
It doesn’t say who will appeal.
It only says the left has won.
The left! The left! The left has won.
Now the Pubbies can’t have fun.
No fun for you, you Pubbie scum.
Pubbies mean. Pubbies dumb.
Imagine what would happen if one group decided to prevent the other side from participation in the process? So much for peace.
It’s bad enough that you talk like there’s only two sides, but you both systematically exclude independents, third parties, and dissidents from participation in the process. Just try getting on a state ballot as a Libertarian or Independent sometime. Even if you jump through the hoops of fire in every state, their BIpartisan commission won’t let you debate. There ain’t even a judge anywhere who gives a shit.
First, from my source:
It said that when I posted it, too.
Second, carrying out a plan that a judge has forbidden you from carrying out is illegal. Maybe you should check out how the law works sometime before calling other people liars. The judge declared that their plan was illegal, by which I obviously mean they don’t have the legal right to carry out their plan.
Note that if the judges’ decisions are overturned on appeal, the appeals court will be saying that their plan was legal. This ain’t rocket science. It’s just law.
I’ll accept your apology now, since I doubt I’ll get a chance to accept it later; you’re not famous for admitting when you overreach.
Daniel