Patrick.net

Why you should take voter supression efforts seriously

By Dan8267   Follow   Fri, 8 Jun 2012, 4:44pm   955 views   8 comments
In Boca Raton FL 33433   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

They should teach this in American history classes.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414798/june-04-2012/john-lewis

Damn, that's one hell of a story.

Viewing Comments 1-8 of 8     Last »     See most liked comments

1. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   1   4:37pm Tue 12 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Ruki says The 'story' can be summed up entirely like this: "Wow! I marched with MLK! That gives me the right to say whatever unverifiable bullshit I want to on TV! Even better, people on p-net will believe that BS w/o a single critical eye, too! Shit, what a scam!" Obey The Tripods Wow, that's some seriously fucked up view on history. I guess the Holocaust never happened either. Even I would not have thought a right-winger would deny that during the 1960s the rights of African Americans to vote was illegally suppressed. That's batshit crazy revisionist history. But hey, let's teach both sides of the controversy. The side that said the Holocaust happened and the side that said it didn't, and let the students decide what they want to believe. By the way, did you know that most Americans don't know that George Carlin crossed the Nile during the American Revolution to fight the French and win our independence from the Martian dinosaurs that enslaved our ancestors? True story. I read it on Wikipedia. Martian dinosaurs photographed by Mars Rover.

2. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   2   5:53pm Tue 12 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Ruki says Wow! You just lost the entire argument by running afoul of Godwin's Law. Nice going. No, you dumb ass. Know your memes. From http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html Godwin's Law: prov. [Usenet] “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. Godwin himself has discussed the subject. Clearly, I did not compare you to Hitler or the Nazis. I compared you to Holocaust deniers like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And the comparison is valid as denying the facts about racial suppression of blacks involving lethal force and the threat of lethal force is similar to the denial of the Holocaust of Jews. Both denials are the rewriting of history to deny the atrocities committed against people because of their race. Both serve to continue injustices against those people and are only committed by racists who, although they did not necessarily participate in the events, silently approve of such actions. For falsely invoking Godwin's Law, you lose. Ruki says It wasn't illegally suppressed. It was legally suppressed, remember? A state law that violates the Constitution is illegal. Ruki says Ok, so you are a product of the teacher's union-controlled shitty pubic school system. What about it? I have never attended public schools. Nice way to try to divert attention from the issue by using an unfounded personal attack. Ruki says Notice how liberals don't give a rat's ass about voter suppression when it is part of their collective guilt trip against whites that they try to force upon the rest of us? Bullshit. If blacks are prevent whites from voting, I'd call that illegal as well. I think you are confusing leftist with liberal. They mean entirely different things. Liberals believe in liberty. That's why they are called liberals. It's not rocket science. Ruki says Black Panthers deliberately scaring white voters away from polling center during 2008 election. Arrested and charge by the Bush Justice Department but then released by Holder because Holder never has met a white person he did not want to fuck over. If that is true -- and that's a big if since you are an creditless source of information -- than those involve should be prosecuted for preventing people from exercising their Constitutional rights. But somehow I suspect that suppression of black voters is more typical, particularly in the south.

3. APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich Follow Befriend (28) 171 threads 4,211 comments Premium

   3   8:29pm Wed 13 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I simply shoot my way through the brigades of Black Panthers that try to deny me access to the polling station. Usually, after a 4-6 hour free-fire right, my righteousness and superior firepower prevails and I get to vote. If Americans aren't eager to exploit their 2nd Amendment freedoms to their maximal potential, Freedom is doomed!

4. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   4   3:44pm Thu 14 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Ruki says Uh, to bring up the Holocaust in any shape or form invokes references to HItler and Nazis. That's a Godwin's Law F-up. Who is the dumb ass now? Still you. That's not what Godwin's Law is or intends. And denouncing deniers of atrocities is a perfectly valid thing to do. Ruki says They didn't violate the Constitution. That didn't happen until AFTER they resisted the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Right's Act. Pay attention. You really need to read the Constitution. Go here, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html Specifically read amendment 15. AMENDMENT XV Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude-- Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Do I really have to dumb this down for you. It even explicitly stays "or by any State". Your grasp of even the very basic tenants of our system of government is depressingly lacking. At this point I expect you to deny that I've quoted the actual fifteenth amendment of the Constitution, and accuse me of quoting a fake version released by the Obama Whitehouse. Ruki says Not in the America, they don't. Half of your problem is that you have your head so far up your ass that you can't hear people explain the difference between left and liberal. I'll give you one last chance to redeem yourself. The difference between a leftist and a liberal. Leftist: People should not be allowed to say racist or offensive things on college campuses because it creates an atmosphere of intolerance. Liberal: Freedom of speech is the most sacred of our principles. We cannot sacrifice it merely because it becomes inconvenient or offensive. In fact, speech that is offensive is precisely the speech that most needs protection. Leftist: So you're saying that it's ok to call a black man a nigger? Liberal: It's legal to call a black man a nigger. It's also morally wrong. The two are independent concepts. Furthermore, it is a violation of a person's rights to prevent him from using hateful speech. Liberal continues: Furthermore, the correct response to hateful speech is not to sweep it under the carpet but to counter it with better and more inspirational speech. When the KKK comes to demonstrate, you counter-demonstrate by holding up pictures of lynchings. You make the world see that their position is evil. You don't hide evil; you fight it. Leftist: But can't we at least limit controversial speech to free-speech zones so that it doesn't make other people uncomfortable? Liberal: All of America is a free speech zone. And college campuses should especially be places where controversial speech is not only allowed but encouraged, not despite the fact that it is controversial, but exactly because it is controversial. Conservative: You're both wrong. The only speech that should be allowed is that which agrees with my positions. Liberal: You sound just like a leftist. Leftist: What! I have nothing in common with that toothless, imbed, sheep shagger! Liberal: Actually, you have more in common with him than me. Ruki says You suspect but can't prove. I suspect that men are more open to one-night stands and anonymous sex than women. Some things are just plain obvious. Nevertheless, I'm sure we can find ample statistical evidence to support that racial voter suppression happens way the fuck more in Alabama than Massachusetts. Only a moron would argue otherwise. I look forward to your counterargument.

5. HEY YOU Follow Befriend (4) 334 threads 919 comments

   5   11:11pm Thu 14 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   For all the anti-socialist, "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare" Surely that can't be in the Constitution.

6. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

   6   4:32am Fri 15 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   HEY YOU says For all the anti-socialist, "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare" Surely that can't be in the Constitution. Look up what the actual writers of the Constitution actually said regarding the "general welfare" clause. Just because the term "welfare" has changed to be associated with government-provided social entitlements does not mean that was the intent of those who used the term when they wrote the Constitution - their actual words and explanations indicate that it was not. So while you might be gay with yourself for thinking the founders were promoting, or would support "socialism," a little more research would help.

7. CaptainShuddup Follow Befriend (1) 249 threads 4,731 comments

   7   6:04am Fri 15 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Dan8267 says Wow, that's some seriously fucked up view on history. I guess the Holocaust never happened either. Well I kinda have to agree, every time there's a black guy or 60 year old white guy that even as much as participated in a million strong march. They are labeled as "Civil Rights Activist" when they are announced. They can call them selves what ever they want, but I just find it odd, they waited to do so until AFTER the people that could refute their claim are dead. "Man you weren't the "Organizer" you were there because you thought you could get laid..." disclaimer I'm not criticizing the civil rights movement just the thousands of people NOW call them selves "Activists". Seems now to have been more chiefs than Indians, than I remembered it.

8. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 764 threads 7,710 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   8   10:16am Fri 15 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   CaptainShuddup says "Man you weren't the "Organizer" you were there because you thought you could get laid..." That's certainly true of many male protesters in the 1960s and today. However, the video isn't about this particular man. The messenger is irrelevant. The important thing about the video is the story in which the state used the threat of massacring unarmed civilians if they tried to exercise their right -- one could say even duty -- to vote. That is what is suppose to leave an impression upon you. There is something really sad about "social conservatives" that they always miss this point. If social conservationism was really about personal responsibility rather than code for racism and other forms of bigotry, then social conservatives should be the most vocal of those singing the praises of the African-Americans risking their lives to protect the Constitution from domestic enemies who wanted to undermine our republic. If social conservatives actually believed what they try to convince others they believe, then social conservatives would be calling these African Americans heroes. The right to vote shouldn't be a left-right issue. It should be an American vs Tyranny issue. How a person can consider themselves an American patriot and not support the rights of all adult Americans to vote can only be explained as a lie. Such a person is no patriot.