It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

50,000 Democratic voter registrations in Georgia mysteriously dissapear

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

So, you're right of Attila the Hun? Okay, noted.



Yes. I'm so far to the right that I wrap back around to thee left - which I guess may have been what gave you the impression that I was somewhere near the center.




Guess I missed that; I had thought you were a reasonable, fairly level-headed poster.



that depends on how one defines "reasonable" and "level-headed". I know a number of people who think of me as such, despite my rightwardness. I presume there are folks around who think the same of you, despite your leftwardness.

I reality, I dislike those terms "right" and "left", as they are not adequately descriptive, and leave an impression of a distinction that doesn't appear to be the case any longer. To be honest, where the rubber meets the road, i can't see a nickel's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans these days, but those terms are what we are hampered with having to work with, currently.




I guess at this point, to limit screen scroll, and rather than bickering back and forth with someone who describes himself as you do ... I'm not sure what you and I have to discuss.



Probably not much - I was just attempting to point out the partisan-ness of your claims, and that the data didn't support the rhetoric. I wasn't really expecting a discussion, or having to re-post the same data..




A few quick responses:

No one, anywhere, ever has suggested that voters not be identified in order to vote. Personally, I've noted that I've been IDed every time I've ever voted since 1984 in Georgia, and shown how every state has requirements for providing identification, checkin at the poll, etc. The constant lie that Democrats just want to throw open the doors is getting old.



Then what is the problem with requiring ID? That's what I'm not getting. isn't it mostly Democrats that are against it and Republicans that are for it? Or am I getting my partisanship mixed up and vice-versa-ed again? It's sometimes hard to keep them straight when one can't see much difference between them.




"The dole" ... really? Haven't heard that term in a while.



yeah, I'm an Old Guy, and we sometimes use anachronisms like that. We tend to describe things as we see them, rather than trying to sugar-coat them.




I'm not sure about what kind of ID you need to apply for social services; maybe someone here can help you. I've only been on unemployment once for about two weeks, I hated it and took a job at Walmart until I found something else, and hope to never have to repeat it again.



Maybe I'll check into it and let you know - there may not be as big a problem with requiring ID as some want to make it look.




Why is that always the question? "How are these folks getting along now?" Can't we just be proactive for once? Why don't we just concentrate on getting every one an appropriate ID without all the hassles, costs, unfair requirements, etc. and MOVE ON?



Well now, I'm personally against a universal ID, too, but that would be MY problem, not yours.

What "hassles" and "unfair requirements"? Now, to be honest, I got a State ID in NC once, and it just so happened that I got it on the very last day that one could actually leave the DMV and walk out the door with it - after that, everyone applying has to wait until they mail it to them in order to be able to be themselves, rather than nobodies. I can sort of see that as a "hassle", but "unfair requirements"? I had to prove whom I was, but hardly consider that unfair, in light of the fact that I was getting an ID... I suppose they just wanted to make sure that the ID was a valid one, meaning that I was who I was. I hear driver's licenses suffer the same problems in NC. They apparently want to make sure of your ID before just slapping an ID on you. Who knew?




If the State imposes new requirements that restrict or suppress a citizen's vote, then yes, I'm sorry it is the State's responsibility to insure that every citizen has the opportunity to get what is needed TO vote. If that's "nanny state" then it's nanny state; it's also the only fair and equitable option.



what is unfair or new about having to prove who you are in order to have a document proving who you are? The extent of the State's responsibility is in creating an avenue to get IDs if it requires IDs - the rest, actually getting it, falls upon the individual.




So, anyway, there's some responses. Since we seem to be quite far about on the political scale, and fairly resolute in our positions, I don't see much else to talk about. If you do, have at it. If not, best to you.



No problem - differences are what makes the world go 'round. If we thought entirely alike, one of us would be completely unnecessary.




posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus


Im sorry Gryph, but you seem to imagine tha tDemocrat's popularity goes over 51%. Half the voters in this country are still Republican or Libertian. And many Republicans reportedly stayed home in 2012, and you want to know why? Because they didn't like Romney, because they were Ron Paul supporters. Ron Paul easily has a million supporters who could steer the vote. Thanks to those who stayed home we got another 4 years of O.



That's a good illustration. Romney is emblematic of the problems in the Republican party. He's not a "Republican", he's a "Neocon", which would be better termed "left-wing light" or "leftist under a new label but with the same contents". 4 years under Romney would have been NO different than 4 under Obama. It was a false "choice" presented, in reality no choice at all - a choice between a left winger and a left winger.

THAT, I believe, is why the right wing voters stayed home - they weren't given anyone to vote for, only people to vote against, with neither clearly a "lesser of two evils". There was no clear advantage in voting for or against either one, so they didn't waste their energy.

I think it's a conspiracy - what better way to insure your guy is elected than to present the same thing to the other side as "one of their own", and disgust them out of voting at all, thereby insuring that the majority of the votes that ARE cast go to your guy?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

That's a good illustration. Romney is emblematic of the problems in the Republican party. He's not a "Republican", he's a "Neocon", which would be better termed "left-wing light" or "leftist under a new label but with the same contents".


I can't possibly imagine where you are on a left-right spectrum if you think Romney was anywhere near the left. Let alone Obama.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Traditionally, the breakdown of "identification" was usually closer to thirds for each group Democrats/Independents/Republicans.

The trends are that Democrats are basically remaining the same in terms of membership, Independents are growing, Republicans are declining.



At the risk of being labeled a partisan hack, I'd like to point again to YOUR own linked graphs, which again show that not to be the case - in particular, this one right here.

It shows the Democrat party to be on a downward trend as well, and as a matter of fact it shows the Democrat party to be at it's lowest point in at least 10 years, and probably 18 years (the resolution isn't fine enough to be certain), and about 6% below the level of 1988, when the graph starts. Oddly, the only hard number it gives for Democrats (and Republicans) is the current figure - most of the hard numbers on it are for the Independents, who are rising pretty dramatically. Over the last year, Republicans have gained, Democrats stayed steady, and Independents gained sharply. Over the life of the graph, both Republicans and Democrats have been in decline, while Independents have gained.

My God - looking at the tight grouping in '88 and the wide pattern now, it looks like someone shot 'em out of a shotgun!





edit on 2014/10/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu




What "hassles" and "unfair requirements"? Now, to be honest, I got a State ID in NC once, and it just so happened that I got it on the very last day that one could actually leave the DMV and walk out the door with it - after that, everyone applying has to wait until they mail it to them in order to be able to be themselves, rather than nobodies. I can sort of see that as a "hassle", but "unfair requirements"?



What he really means by "unfair requirements" is being a US citizen, not being a convicted felon, or being of age to vote I imagine, since those are pretty much the only requirements(at least that I know of), but what the Democrats want everyone to believe is that there is some other discrimination going on here.

In the States, even having a driver's license does not assure that one is a US Citizen. People can be here just on a VISA and get a DL, but the license does look a bit different for non-citizens and Green Card holders. So I guess maybe Gryph and his fellow Democrats want non-citizens to have voting power.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Totally Agree!!!!!!!

I wasn't thrilled about Ro either, but it was better than Bo. (although that might be contested when taking into account the RINO/NEOCON factor)

Not much more radical than current occupant. Hillary will not be any less radical. She just got beat out by Bo.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Not for nothing, I found this at Gallup: Party Affiliation

This actually tracks the way Americans are "identifying" month by month and sometimes week-by-week.

It's fascinating to see the ebb and flow of public opinion.


Now that IS a pretty fascinating collection of data!

I noted from it that since the week of July 7-10 - in the run-up to the current election - Independents have lost 10% while Republicans have gained 10% and Democrats 0%.

Things that make you go "hmmmm..."

ETA: and since Jan, 2009 (when Obama took office last), Republicans have gone from 30% to 33%, Independents from 33% to 35%, and Democrats from 36% to 29%... the last the only decline overall.

Hmmmm...




edit on 2014/10/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

a reply to: nenothtu

Romney is emblematic of the problems in the Republican party. He's not a "Republican", he's a "Neocon", which would be better termed "left-wing light" or "leftist under a new label but with the same contents". 4 years under Romney would have been NO different than 4 under Obama. It was a false "choice" presented, in reality no choice at all - a choice between a left winger and a left winger.


That definition of "Neocon" is correct,

get ready for an onslaught of broken hearted Obama supporters that have lost their way.

Get ready.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: links234





I can't possibly imagine where you are on a left-right spectrum if you think Romney was anywhere near the left. Let alone Obama.


The partial answer is that Ro pioneered the pre-cursor to the Affordable Care Act for the State of Massachusetts. Now one can argue that because it was only on a state level, it does not have the same blueprint as the nationalized monstrosity that is Obamacare, but it is still Big Government, just at a state level, and it is still tinged with socialistic stuff and probably even has fewer pages....

other than that, Establishment all the way. That is why Ron Paul people were so angry.
There are those of us who just want less intrusive government, and the Democrat Party simply stands for bigger and more intrusive government.
The Patriot Act is quite intrusive, don't you think? So is the TSA. Both parties have sustained those items and even expanded them.

That is the Hope and Change you know who brought us.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Well, let's just say I didn't have nenothtu confused with you, Third, and leave it at that, eh?


1. Can you quote "all the left wingnut media outlets" (hey, look at that, you copied your buddy ... isn't that cute!) saying anything about "electric bills for ID"?

K, thanks.

Oh, and this gem ...


originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It's the Democrats who are trying to get so many numbers of people that they have to win.


2. Is your logic that the Democrats should try to get so few people that they have to lose? Somehow? Seriously, do you read what you write?

3. Can you substantiate your claim that Democrats are "going for dead people"? I know I know, it's funny compared with some of the history from a hundred years ago in Chicago, but, do you have anything relevant from this century? K, thanks again.
edit on 20Wed, 29 Oct 2014 20:58:57 -050014p0820141066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Who would ever call you a partisan hack? Henceforth, you shall be known as Little Atilla. Tilla for short.

So, no rebuttal to being proven wrong the last time, eh? You finally saw that Democrats outnumber Republicans?

Okay. Good. Progress.

It was pretty straightforward and obvious; I knew you'd see it.

Let's look at your evidence this time around, shall we?

In 1988, it shows Democrats at 33, Independents at about 32, and Republicans at 31.

Not for nothing, I'd say that's almost a textbook interpretation of the words "Traditionally, the breakdown of 'identification' was usually closer to thirds for each group Democrats/Independents/Republicans." (PS, honestly, I might have given the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, ssshhh.)

So, let's see I was correct there, now lessee ... looking at your chosen graph again:

1. In 1988 Democrats were at 33, and in 2012 they were at 31. A net two-point swing in 24 years? That's a fair description of "remaining basically the same" ... I'd say, wouldn't you? Wait I'm sorry, wouldn't a normal person?

2. In 1988, Independents are at 32, in 2012 they're at 40 (higher than any group at any time on this graph). Yep, again, safe to say that "Independents are growing" eh?

3. In 1988 Republicans are at 31, in 2012, they are at 28, quite notably the lowest point of any group measured on the graph. Declining? Yeah, yeah they are.

So, I'm right in all three of my summation examples from your chosen graph, even though I wasn't referring to that graph!

Dang, I am good.

Better luck next time, Tilla.
edit on 21Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:04:21 -050014p0920141066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: nenothtu



I would fully and wholeheartedly agree with you here, but the result of that is at least temporarily what we have now for another 2 years and maybe longer until the GOP finally figures out that being more Democrat won't stop the bleeding.



It's going to happen, sooner or later... I'd just rather it were sooner, so we could get this show on the road. We're going to have "what we have now" for another two years regardless, so why not be working towards the goal in that interim? We've had it now for at least 14 years, and I would argue for a bit longer than that, and it's just not working, regardless of the initial you put beside it, it's still the same old same old. I can paint my house blue, or I can paint my house red, but at the end of the day, under the paint job, it's still the same old house.

I think the house needs an addition to spruce it up and perhaps shake it up, then we can work on remodeling the kitchen by demolishing and replacing it.




I think really that the real Elite plan is to merge the two parties till there really is no difference, like sometimes people say around here. Full Hegelian style, Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis....and as I've stated many times, Antony Sutton says the NWO is the Synthesis.



I already can't see much difference between them. This is why it amuses me to see one party point fingers at the other and say "but they're CHEATING!", seemingly entirely ignorant (or perhaps supportive) of the cheats in their OWN party.

That's the essence of partisanship - "My party is better than yours because... because... well, just because it IS!" No it's not - it's pretty much the same. Not my problem if folks can't see that because they have to put the blinders on in order to drink the kool-aid. (if I can, I'll try and work a few more cliches in, because I know that Gryphon likes it when I can!)

Case in point - Obama just continues Bush's policies, although he made a big deal about how "different" he was. Same dictatorship, different dictator. Another example, and one of my personal favorites - Romney tried to make a big deal about how "different" he would be than Obama (and presumably Bush, since they are the same)... but wasn't "Obamacare" actually "Romneycare" before it was Obamacare?

Doesn't matter who you vote in - same dictatorship, different dictator. What I want to see is a candidate who actually IS different, with a demonstrably different track record.




Glenn Beck actually had a comparable diagram on his blackboard before he left Fox.... where he showed that both parties were moving leftward. It was brilliant actually, and the wingnut left just ridiculed him to high heaven....but the synthesis is the NWO which Sutton says is neither right nor left. I often hear Progressives saying that B is just continuing the old Bush policies. But that does not make him a right wing guy. No no no, it just makes him another elite player on the NWO battlefield. RINOs on the right are often just as Big Govt as the lefties and lefties just as apt to use crony Capitalism to do their dirty work while they pursue their Utopian goals.



"Left" and "right" don't mean the same things they did way back when. There are no "right wingers" in high offices going by the old notions of "right wing" - they are all LEFT wingers, and have been for some time... that include Bush, both terms. If you'll notice, they even changed the color scheme around year 2000 to reflect - or to mask - that. Way back when, all things left of center were represented by "red", and right of center were represented by "blue", and had been practically forever. Suddenly and without warning, that was entirely reversed just to keep folks off balance and keep 'em confused. A "red state" is not what it was when I was younger - it doesn't even claim the same politics it would have then, much less practice them.

There are no actual "right wingers" in office any more.




And both sides go to war. Both sides are tied in to the military-industrial complex, its just that the left has convinced people they aren't really doing it! I wish the left would stop blaming all the wars on the Republicans for a change.



Similar to the above. back in the early 70's, I was discussing matters with a Vietnam vet who swore that it had always been Democrats who had gotten us into wars, and by the traditional wisdom of the day, he was right. He went to some lengths to go through every US war up to that date, and demonstrate that it was a Democrat that got us chin-deep in it. That's why the gent swore he would never vote Democrat again, and as far as I know, he didn't. Now, the same wars are being blamed on Republicans.

You know why?

My guess is it's because they are the same - not a nickel's worth of difference between 'em, it's just that the partisans try to make it appear that there is. The blame game is designed to muddy the waters and keep people confused. It's to try and make them THINK there is a difference, because if they aren't kept confused, all hell might break loose... and a lot of politicians will be flat on their asses in a Walmart parking lot wondering what the hell hit them.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

So, in case you were unable to follow that train of thought, so-called secularism claimed to be "rational thought" is still considered a religion by the US Supreme Court.



I don't think that "rational thought" is a phrase that should ever be uttered in earnest by anyone subscribing to the AGW dictum, for example (among other things), but that would be getting pretty far afield for this thread. Suffice it to say that one man's "rational thought" is another man's "bonkers", and that applies as much to politics as it does religion, and pretty much every other field of human endeavor.

In context of the thread, the lady who was convicted of voter fraud in Ohio in 2012 was given a standing ovation at some Democrat function she later attended, meaning they must have thought her actions to be "rational". Others, however, apparently differed in that opinion.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm sorry your entire post is just bloviating nonsense!

You didn't confuse me with Nenothu, I'm sure you meant that as some kind of insult, since you're so good at it. You can can confuse or not, ask me if I care.




Is your logic that the Democrats should try to get so few people that they have to lose? Somehow? Seriously, do you read what you write?



Of course not. Don't be silly. But they don't have to cheat to get the numbers. That's just undemocratic. And downright low.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

Oh there's more of that blustery name calling again. You know I find there's nothing more deceitful than the godless secular humanists who believe that there are no absolute values and that the darkness of their human hearts should be allowed to prevail unfettered because they are operating on a completely relative scale of good and bad.

And just to make the point that I am neither syllabically challenged nor illiterate



Dang, almost missed this one in the rush.

Third, third, third ... (you know if you say that three time fast it's hard not to say "Thud"? LOL)

You remind me of that kid in elementary school that always calls people silly names, and then, cries and runs to teacher when he gets called one back.

Don't like name-calling? Don't be a name-caller. Any other questions, refer to "what you learned in kindergarten."

As to the rest of it ...

1. Love Hamlet, good on you!

2. What the Supreme Court did NOT say in '57 is that Secular Humanists "believe that there are no absolute values and that the darkness of their human hearts should be allowed to prevail unfettered because they are operating on a completely relative scale of good and bad."

That's all you , buddy.

You know, you might ask the pedophile priests and pastors about the "darkness of the human heart" ...

... I bet they could give you some REALLY interesting insights.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: nenothtu

That's a good illustration. Romney is emblematic of the problems in the Republican party. He's not a "Republican", he's a "Neocon", which would be better termed "left-wing light" or "leftist under a new label but with the same contents".


I can't possibly imagine where you are on a left-right spectrum if you think Romney was anywhere near the left. Let alone Obama.


That's understandable, especially if you are near or under about 30 years old. What passes for "left" and "right" these days hasn't always been so, so I've had to adjust my definitions in my own mind a bit. I think a more proper division would be "collectivist" (the old "left") and "individualist" (the old "right"). Obama is a collectivist, Romney, Bush, and indeed ALL "Neocons" are also collectivists - as were Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Hitler, Castro, and Mussolini, to name a few others. They may have promoted different "collectives", but they were all still collectivists. Mussolini, for example, promoted a corporate collective, same as Bush, Obama, and Neocons in general. Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Castro, etc promoted a "corporate collective", but one in which the State WAS the corporation, rather than private corporations in league with the State. A minor difference, to me.

Most politicians are collectivists at heart - at least it really seems to put a burr under their blanket if anyone wants as little to do with their chosen collective as possible. They go to extraordinary lengths to force the outliers into their chosen collectives.

Where you may see fascists as "right wingers" I don't - because they are essentially collectivists in favor of forcing people to do business with corporations. Obama's alleged "health care" scheme is a prime example. He wants to force people to line insurance corporation's pockets, all in the name of being "good for the collective", when it's actually only good for the insurance companies' bottom lines, and bad for the individual's.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

"Bloviating" now there's a fancy-schmancy word! You did say you're not illiterate, didn't you?

ThirdEyeofHorus ... what is it really that you want to get out of this interaction? You're just sputtering now. I don't want to trade "I know you are but what am I" posts with you, I really don't. If you don't like talking to me, stop talking to me!

I quoted your nonsense statement about Democrats getting numbers of people to vote. QUOTED YOU. If your words don't make any sense to you, that's not my fault.

You haven't offered any evidence that Democrats are "cheating." It's merely your ideological belief. Which you repeat over and over and over without any evidence. All I've asked you for is that evidence. I've tried to have a rational conversation with you as much as possible. You keep making these unsubstantiated claims, charging me with things you are doing yourself, and in all that, in all this time and all these pages of scroll, you haven't offered one bit of anything reasonable.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen


a reply to: nenothtu

Romney is emblematic of the problems in the Republican party. He's not a "Republican", he's a "Neocon", which would be better termed "left-wing light" or "leftist under a new label but with the same contents". 4 years under Romney would have been NO different than 4 under Obama. It was a false "choice" presented, in reality no choice at all - a choice between a left winger and a left winger.


That definition of "Neocon" is correct,

get ready for an onslaught of broken hearted Obama supporters that have lost their way.

Get ready.




I can't recall where I read it, but I'm sure there is a link out there somewhere - but the original Neocons made no bones about the fact that they were "reformed" Socialists - I just question the extent or amount of their "reform" is all - I don't see a terrible amount of difference between them and the Socialists of old...

... except that NOW, for some unfathomable reason, they are considered to be on the "right".



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu




It's going to happen, sooner or later... I'd just rather it were sooner, so we could get this show on the road. We're going to have "what we have now" for another two years regardless, so why not be working towards the goal in that interim? We've had it now for at least 14 years, and I would argue for a bit longer than that, and it's just not working, regardless of the initial you put beside it, it's still the same old same old.



Oh yes, I definitely agree. What we have now is CFR controlling both parties from a Globalist standpoint. The main difference is that one side is just more Nanny State than the other. Neither side is really espousing the Constitutional values and liberty, but one side is espousing it a bit less than the other. This is the fake Hegelian Socialism vs Capitalism, and neither one is free market/free enterprise, but both incorporate crony capitalism and cronyism in general, since people in Big Government do invite their best friends to join them in bilking the peasant proletariat.
I absolutely agree with you about Bush. The fake Hegelian election of 04 was classic, pitting two Bonesmen against each other. Bush got us into more wars and spent a lot of money on both war and welfare programs and unfunded liabilities. But was that really Bush or was it Congress? Or a little of both? I would call Bush a Globalist more than anything.
As radically Left as Bo is I still think he was primed and supported by Globalists even if he did get his start from more radical leftist people like Bill Ayers. As anti-establishment as Bill Ayers may have been when he was SDS, he sure is Establishment now.
I also agree with you on your point that Neocons are reformed socialists/leftists. After all, it was a socialist who coined the term to mean people who abandoned their radical left causes. But perhaps the real truth is that many of them may have desired to reform the Republican Party. I mean it's Congressional record that the communist party wanted to infiltrate one or both of the major political parties in the US. So one must always be on the lookout for leftward leaning trendsd in the GOP. I saw it after the 2012 election when people in the news media were talking like we have to be more like the Democrats to get the numbers back up. Say what???????
Communism is really based on a one-party dictatorship.

Anyway, back on topic, I noticed this interesting statement in the original ThinkProgress article

Johnson explained to ThinkProgress over the phone. “We must catch that disenfranchisement before it takes place.”


I thought it was somewhat of an odd statement. It's like saying we know you are going to disenfranchise our voting bloc so we are going to accuse you of it beforehand so you don't do it.

And there's this

emphasized that any voter unsure of their registration status can always cast a provisional ballot. Those who do so must return within three days to present additional documentation or otherwise cure any problem with the system. But the NAACP and New Georgia Project called this remedy “unacceptable.”
thinkprogress.org...

Basically, these people are bringing a lawsuit for a purpose other than just getting people registered.
edit on 29-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Let's see here ...

Fascist: fas·cist
ˈfaSHəst/
noun
noun: fascist; plural noun: fascists
1.
an advocate or follower of fascism.
synonyms: authoritarian, totalitarian, autocrat, extreme right-winger, rightist;
More antonyms: liberal
adjective
adjective: fascist
1.
of or relating to fascism.
"a military coup threw out the old fascist regime"
synonyms: authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorial, despotic, autocratic, undemocratic, illiberal; More
antonyms: democratic

Hmmm...

Neocon:

Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s. Many of its adherents rose to political fame during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the presidency of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the invasion of Iraq. Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer.

Neoconservatives frequently advocate the "assertive" promotion of democracy and promotion of "American national interest" in international affairs including by means of military force

(Source: Wikipedia "Neoconservatism")

MORAL: Sometimes, words have meanings.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey, here's something new and different. How 'bout an update on the actual topic of the thread, huh?



ATLANTA, GEORGIA—On Tuesday, Judge Christopher Brasher of the Fulton County Superior Court denied a petition from civil rights advocates to force Georgia’s Secretary of State to process an estimated 40,000 voter registrations that have gone missing from the public database.


Source



Angela Aldridge, an organizer with the group 9 to 5 Atlanta Working Women who has been working to register voters for several months, told ThinkProgress she was “furious” when she learned of the outcome: “That impedes people’s rights,” she said. “People need information before they go out to vote and they don’t even know if they’re registered or not. They were discouraged, upset, kind of frazzled, not really knowing what was going on. What can you even say to people who want to vote but possibly can’t? They might get disengaged and say, ‘Why vote? It doesn’t matter.’ It’s really disheartening.”


So, a Republican activist judge backs up a slimey, disingenuous Republican Secretary of State ("Hey, there's no law about how fast we have to process registrations") to prevent 40,000 registered voters from voting.

Who would ever say that Republican officials are trying to suppress the vote, huh?

(I'm disgusted and done. Enjoy)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join