More bullshit.
I’m not motivated enough to look it up – and it’s probably been pointed out to you doznes of times – but in the Florida felon vote suppression (of 2000?) the same-name checking software was set up to handle Hispanic surnames differently. One race of felons (or rather innocents whose names matched that of a felon) was being much more actively suppressed than the other!
Care to guess which was which?
Strawman. I said felons vote overwhelming for Democrats. Your statement has no bearing at all on that.
I’d note that Bricker’s argument has failed so utterly, he has scrambled to find something to hang his hat on and attack back.
Buh, buh, buh, felons!!11on3!11
Any thoughts on post 4932, Bricker, or are you too busy with your martyrdom?
As was pointed out, the demographics of convicted felons are different than those of the population at large. I suggest that their Democratic leaning tendencies are more closely dependent on these demographis than they are on their status as felons.
Who is that one climate change denying douchebag who has his imaginary ignore list? Username starts with an “m” IIRC?
I think I’ve just been ***reverse ***imaginary ignored by Bricker!
Bricker, I counter your offer. If you don’t want me reading your posts, stop posting. That would also have the benefit of saving you from the metaphoric lead pipes that the big mean bullies are beating you with.
I told you to stop reading my posts. According to you, they offer no value. So stop.
I don’t agree that they offer no value, so of course I’ll keep posting.
Only one of us is acting inconsistently with his claims. Shockingly, it’s the liberal.
So now you agree that felons vote overwhelmingly Democratic…but say there’s a reason for it?
I asked you to summarize my arguments. You refused. You asked me to summarize yours; I did.
Why must I jump through your hoops and you get to ignore mine?
Answer: because there is no social cost here for doing so.
Right?
Not remotely an accurate summary of the discussion.
But you’re a liberal so you’ll be cheered for this.
If I read this right, you’re asserting your prerogative to pick and choose what you will respond to and what you will comment on.
Guess what - we ALL have that prerogative, so your whining about how we’re not policing each other is especially immature.
As a side note, I don’t recall asking you to summarize my views. I think I dismissively described the summary process as akin to middle-school book reports. As I recall, you voluntarily offered your summary of my views.
If you can give me the post number where I made this request, I’d like to review it.
You’re absolutely right. I was wrong. Your posts have the value of amusing me. I’m not sure this is really of overall value to the board, though, and you raise a good point.
But really, who am I to say? Now that you mention it, other people might find the same modicum of perverse pleasure in watching you bluster and blather and repudiate and bitch and cry foul that I do.
Setting perversity (mine, and potentially others) aside for the moment, I would still contend that the net value of your contributions is still negative. I will have to give further consideration to my role as an enabler in this situation.
Well, that’s very honest of you…especially since others of your ilk seem to believe they will burst into flame if they type the phrase, “I was wrong.”
So you’re off restriction. You are again permitted to read my posts. Don’t abuse the privilege.
It was somewhere between 1-4951. Start checking in that range.
I’ll tell you where I was wrong. I was wrong to rebuke adaher. Treating you with logic and respect only encourages shitty treatment in return. He had the right idea all along.
Hah, adaher. If the broken clock analogy were to apply to him, we’d have to live on Venus.*
Anyway if you’d treated me with logic and respect, I’m sure I would reciprocate after I got over the shock.
*Astronomy buffs will appreciate that, I hope.
Here, let me help. I’m mindful of your limitations, so I will type slowly.
I did not state, as a fact, that the Washington Times story was a fabrication. I announced my suspicion. That suspicion was based on a two salient facts, which I provided.
The first, that it was apparent to me after googling that no other publication had offered said story. Not the NY Times, nor the LA Times, nor Washington Post, nor CS Monitor, nor Topeka Value Shopper. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.
And secondarily, that the Washington Times is a wretched abuse of innocent trees, no more worthy of reliance for fact that the Reichminister of Propaganda, or the Pravda of old. (Aside: have you ever cited the Washington Times?)
So, yeah, Hugh Betcha, I was suspicious, and voiced that suspicion with “How very odd!”. You, who have so often scurried for shelter beneath a careful semantic distinction, must Shirley know that there is a difference between voicing a suspicion and a clear assertion of fact.
I am heartened to know that the Washington Times has purveyed a truth, it is a wonder, and these minor miracles give life a special bouyance, a bit of fragile hope that they may, one day, stumble out of the Darkness. Perhaps, someday, even you!
Dare we hope? We do dare, do dare, all the livelong day…
Although it probably doesn’t make any difference to the underlying argument, let me point out that the paper cited in Bricker’s link is this: “Do Voting Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-Felon Turnout?”. That paper in turn cites earlier papers, including this one: Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States. The latter paper actually does a demographic analysis of felons, and predicts what their voting patterns would have been (had they voted) based on the voting patterns of a similar demographic.
Amusingly, the popular press gets most, but not all, facts from the cited paper correct in the body of the article (see what Bricker quoted: the New Mexico 10.2% Rep should be 19%), and then completely screws up the headline: “Jail survey: 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats”. Well, no - the 7/10 comes from the demographic analysis of actual voting patterns (not registration) done in the earlier papers.
Republicans have better lawyers?
You aren’t losing because you’re a conservative. You’re losing because you’re arguing drivel.
I checked every post in which I recently used the word “summary”. None of them contain any requests to Bricker for a “summary” of my views or position or anything. In fact, my post 4872 says:
I’m prepared to accept that Bricker has me confused with someone who did make such a request. Given his breakneck (indeed, meth-suggestive) pace of posts to this thread, it seems plausible.