diamond
ONE love, blood, life
there was no nobility in Boxer's grandstanding today.
db9
db9
nbcrusader said:
dazzledbylight said:
i was going through the posts so fast in the mid-afternoon that while i knew immedately what you were talking about re: the 'poll tax", and in my head I was thinking....'no, basicaly voting IS a right...'- The Voting Privilages Act went right past me till now, when i have a bit more time to be here and read the posts...
for the snarky 'joke', stran, very good.....` :snicker:
deep said:so you wouldn't care if you had been prevented from voting by 8 hour lines or whatever diamond, or if your vote wasn't counted?
Well,
Would you as a single parent wait in line 8 hours?
Where is your empathy?
Who would pick up your kids after school?
I guess there is a guy in van with some candy
waiting to give them a ride
You would wait 8 hours? Right?
nbcrusader said:Oh, the drama.
Why did Boxer wait 10 weeks to make her 2-hour grandstand.
And if you are really physically sick, maybe Elvis should place appropriate warnings on the site.
I can respect you and your differences with me, it's nice to see that you've moved on. I too think that we should concentrate on finding solutions that will do us good instead - like promoting funding for the tsunami victims.U2democrat said:ok even i have moved on. they need to move on too. there are other battles to be fought.
nbcrusader said:She really nailed this one. I hope the Academy will recognize her performance.
diamond said:
statements and questions like that make you appear odd and unstable.
strannix said:
I'll be here all week ....
diamond said:
statements and questions like that make you appear odd and unstable.
as a parent i would have did a number of things to teach my children(if i had to) their civic responsibility and and what a privilige it is to vote.
i would of made arrangements for them to join me in line, if i had to, even if it took 8 hours.
it's that simple.
peace-
db9
diamond said:
my point is with rights there are responsibilities, one can forfeit a lot of their rights by their conduct.
db9
strannix said:
That's an odd point to make, as it is a) completely obvious, and b) completely irrelevant, unless you're arguing that people had to spend 8 hours in line because they forfeited their right to vote.
namkcuR said:
Odd and unstable? For crying out loud, open your mind just a little bit. Those questions were perfectly legitimate. There are reasons why people can't afford to spend 8 hours in line to vote, whether you want to recognize that or not.
diamond said:NamkcuR-
the larger point is that my kids are deep's neices.
most ppl know that mr deep and I are brothers.
perhaps you didn't.
by any stretch most would consider it an odd statement, regardless of our relationship.
that's all.
peace
out
db9
diamond said:
the point of that post was to clarify your parsing of the words
"privilige" and "right" in this thread.
db9
strannix said:
Ah yes, I think I remember this explained in the Voting Privileges Act of 1965.
Gosh, and to think, people complain about liberals being elitist. I can hardly think of anything "enlightened" about that statement, as all it does is justify pretty much any disenfranchisement I can think of.
Poll taxes, anyone?
diamond said:
perhaps this will refresh your memory?
db9
namkcuR said:Odd and unstable? For crying out loud, open your mind just a little bit. Those questions were perfectly legitimate. There are reasons why people can't afford to spend 8 hours in line to vote, whether you want to recognize that or not.
strannix said:
Look, I'll spell this out.
MrsSpringsteen asks if you want to wait 8 hours to vote. You respond by saying voting is a right not a privilege. You later clarify by saying that what you meant is that people can have rights revoked due to their behavior.
It's clear that you're arguing, whether you realize it or not, that the folks who had to wait 8 hours had to do so because their right had been compromised because of their behavior. I don't understand that argument.
Perhaps this isn't what you meant, but it's quite clearly what you said. Hence my assertion that you don't know what you're saying.
nbcrusader said:
All we have are repeated anecdotal tales of 8-hour waits, and a few race cards tossed in as well.
With the number of lawyers the DNC had floating around, if there was validity to any of this, appropriate legal action would have been taken. It wasn't.
Flying FuManchu said:Reform is great... as long as we can overturn the election, I'm all for it.
diamond said:NamkcuR-
the larger point is that my kids are deep's neices.
most ppl know that mr deep and I are brothers.
perhaps you didn't.
by any stretch most would consider it an odd statement, regardless of our relationship.
that's all.
peace
out
db9
strannix said:Not surprisingly, you apparently bothered little to find out exactly what the complaints are before you dismiss them out of hand.
For example, we have more than "repeated anecdotal tales" (although I'd point out that if anecdotal tales are repeated enough times by enough people that becomes pretty compelling evidence). The actual fact of the matter is that the number of available voting booths in the precincts in question were decreased, even though the population did not.
As I've already mentioned in this thread to you, there are many complaints in this matter based on actual fact. I repeat my request to you to argue them on the merits, instead of casual dismissals that reek far more of ignorance and partisanship than any kind of concern for integrity or fairness.