Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: are you support the vote suppressors? or against them?

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 10, 2012, 6:32 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

ex-Chairmn lays bare FL GOP's voter suppression on MSNBC:

In a recent court deposition, former Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer denounced state officials in his party as liars and "whack-a-do, right-wing crazies" and accused them of scheming on ways to suppress black votes. He's totally sincere in his disgust of the Republican Party's current focus on voter suppression, and he had an inside view of these efforts.

Here were Greer's main points :

In is 3.5 years as Florida GOP party chair, Greer was in numerous meetings about changing the voter registration and voter ID laws in Florida, and in not one of those meetings as voter fraud EVER brought up as a concern by Republican strategies. The main concern of the GOPers in Florida, according to Greer, was that they prevent a repeat of Obama's 2008 victory in Florida (Greer kept repeating that point). Voter fraud is merely a GOP "marketing tool" with "no validity to it," Greer said.

Greer lamented that the "Republican Party has given up on minority voters," and so their strategy right now is to keep as many minorities from voting as possible. He expressed his disgust at this tactic. He said that as chair of the Florida GOP he tried to develop strategies for the party to reach out to minority populations, but was rebuffed at every turn.

Greer described the Republican Party in Florida, and in many other states, as having been overtaken by "pitchfork, torching-bearing mobs looking for Frankenstein" rather than being a party about ideas and principles and running about what they stand for. He said the current Florida GOP leaders "hate" moderate Republicans like him and Charlie Crist. "It's very sad what's going on in the Republican Party," Greer said.

Greer claimed that Florida's new law to limit the length of early voting, which was pushed through by Republicans, was intended solely to reduce the number of minorities and young people who are able to vote, since the data show that they are more likely to vote in early voting.

122 Comments

122 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I'm against them.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

OK three choices=
D▬►99%
r▬►1%
none▬►1%

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I like visual presentations. But apparently someone (s) is not a fan. You were at minus 3 I gave you back 1.

Critics can be so harsh when they are supporting the corpoRATs status-quo.

[-] -1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 2 years ago

I gave you 1 also

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I think both sides are guilty of intentional vote manipulation. But they are state rights issues, to be negotiated at state level, and to each his own.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Both?!? Dems are not perpetrating a massive concerted effort to suppress the vote. Repubs must cheat to win.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/13/michael-tomasky-on-how-the-gop-plans-to-block-the-black-vote.html

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Both sides have plenty of issues of people cheating.

The Republicans think they are going to supress the vote by requiring ID. I guarantee that less than .01% of people who want to vote dont have an ID.

Its just more nonsense to keep the masses focused on issues that cannot be proven one way or another, while the banks continue to rip us off in broad daylight.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Both sides are not the same. Republicans have a 38 state concerted effort to suppress the vote of elderly, minority, & young people. In PA alone it is estimated to be almost 1 million votes ell within te margin of victory. Much more than .01%. Dems want to expand the vote, Republicans must suppress the vote to suggest the opposite is dishonest, and betrays you republican partisanship. You effort to play down the damage also betrays your republican partisanship.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

There's around 10 million registered voters in PA. By your sources, that would mean that one in ten voters doesn't have ID. I think we can both agree that is total bullshit.

http://www.paindependents.org/Independent-PA-Info/PA-Facts-and-Figures/54/

This voter suppression stuff is the same type of racial stuff, or abortion stuff, that is usually just local politicians doing nonsense work and dominating the political talk in the country, while the country continues to be sold to the highest bidder.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your playing down of this most important issue is an attempt to cover for your republicans. It is clear evidence that you are a partisan republican plant.

You cannot be trusted to give non partisan opinions. We disagree that's all. I am a progressive who believes republicans work for the 1%, & dems can be made to serve the 99%. You seem to be opposite.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Im someone who thinks that this entire system is in total shambles and needs a redo.

And if you werent so fuckin dumb then you would have realized that I have called for EVERYONE VOTING, EVERYONE AUTO REGISTERED. It would eliminate all this bullshit, and most importantly, help the people stay on focus instead of this nonsense that sheep like you get so cuaght up in while the entire system is breaking down.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"sheep"? "fuckin dumb"? insults and vulgarity I guess I hit the nerve of truth. You call for auto registering but don't think the current republican 38 state effort to suppress the vote is real? That is a contradiction! I don't believe you want everyone to vote. I believe you are covering, and playing down your republican paymasters efforts to suppress the votes of elderly, minority, poor, and young peoples votes. You obscene insults will not bully me into submission. That is simply more republican tactics.

Peace, Love, & Solidarity.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"Believing" is what this entire system is about. Screw the people, but keep them believing by blaming the other side.

Works on both sides.

Wake up.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I put blame where blame is. Republicans are trying to steal another election by suppressing democratic votes. You are playing down their efforts because you are serving their interests.

So now your saying I should be smart enough to ignore these crimes against the 99% by your republicans because the plan is to keep the 99% fighting with each other, distracted from the real issues?

Whatta load a crap. Stop voter suppression. Elect progressive Vote out the pro voter suppression republicans.

LMFAO

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Pretty much the establishment is laughing at you because they have you trapped in their box.

Break the shackles dude. Wake up. A better world is possible.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

1st you said that it isn't really gonna affect any one. Then you said the powers that be want to distract me with this non issue. Both stories don't fly.

But....

What are you suggesting I do? besides ignoring the vote suppression of your republican 1% tools. what action would you recommend. So far I've only heard you discourageing action. Let's hear your plan.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I would possibly put together a DA on voter fraud accounts, showing the percentages/ratios to clear up teh misconception that its running rampant. And when it does happen, its a very bi partisan issue.

I would then go out and do some polling in poor communities to find out who is voting, and then ask if they have a gov id. Get some raw stats.

If you wanted to show that this does repress votes, then you put together a campaign or two with the people you found who first said they would vote, and then stated they dont have the funds for an ID.

If you wanted to show that this doesnt repress votes, then you take the raw data and create a campaign that clearly shows that its a very low percentage of people affected.

Depends on what angle you want.

I personally wouldnt worry too much about either of them, because the person who has no id and no funds to get one is so rare that DA's could be used on much more meaningful and effective targets.

[+] -6 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

No but they have hand their Panthers and Acorn, and the ACLU which is trying to award the vote to felons incarcerated, illegal immigrants, etc.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

No one is trying to get "illegals" to vote.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

If a body is going to put someone in a cage, I think that someone has the right to voice their opinion on the policies that they are being affected by.

As far as illegals, if someone hasnt at least started the paperwork to become American, I don't think we should be taking their votes.

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

If a body puts someone in a cage it's because he or she, on some level, is perceived of as an animal and I don't believe that convicted drug dealers, those guilty of heinous crimes, or the habitual predator, should have any say in how laws are formed at all. I'll give you those who have applied for naturalization.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Problem is there is a big difference between heinous crimes and the majority of the cimes that land people in a cage.

[+] -5 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Are you saying we should legalize non-violent crime? It's ok for people to burglarize your home, steal your car, heckle and harass your kids, maybe rob a bank, as long as they do not murder or mutilate anyone?

People don't land in jail for "drug offenses"; they land in jail, after repeated opportunity to reform, for committing crimes. All crimes involve a victim, and some 50 - 60% of those victims are violently effected; many of those you view as the oppressed drug abuser have records that date 30 years or more.

By and large, overall, they're just, plain, animals.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"most have records that date 30 years"? ridiculous. most are 18 year olds. Most ARE incarcerated on just simple possession! You are mistaken. And they're not animals! they're human beings. Many deserve the same break the white kids get. To call them animals falls into the demonization frequently used by racists to allow people to disregard their treatment and fate.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Spam!!!!

Look at how it can replace the human mind!!!!

It can turn it into a piece of quasi-meat.

BTW. there's 16, as an agent of the 1%, I'm sure you left it off the list on purpose.

[-] -3 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Yea, unfortunately, that is the truth. And that 18 year old was definitely NOT incarcerated for simple possession - chances are he has been granted repeated opportunity by our criminal justice system. What this generally translates to is the dismissal of all charges, or repeated RORs, for misdemeanors and minor felonies. That child that lands behind bars belongs there and he embarks on a 30 year career of victimization - dozens if not hundreds of charges. They're animals, for whatever personal reason... and there is nothing that can be done to reform them.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nah. The minority who is convicted on one possession is likely to do time while the white kid gets charges dropped or reduced and serves no time.

That's the reality, Just give the minority kid the same break the white kid gets. And while your at it give the minority kid the same quality education the white kid gets. That can also change the outcome.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

That's absolutely not true. Each and every case that comes before the court is a particular circumstance, each and every case is decided on an individual basis. And almost all initially get a buy for non-violent crime... the courts do not put good kids in jail, let alone good kids for no reason, they always liberally favor adolescence in the hope against hope that some might realize the error of their ways.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree. No point in arguing. I believe the laws, police enforcement, and courts are used to oppress minorities in this new era of Jim Crow. That is why the draconian war on drug laws were created shortly after the voting rights/civil rights laws passed 50 years ago. So I guess you think differently. No matter. We can't all agree.

When they say Justice they mean Just us

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

On one thing we likely will agree - there is no justice in the criminal justice system, it's a deeply flawed system. I don't see minorities as the oppressed, I see them as people who have allowed themselves to be decimated by generational drug and alcohol abuse. And until people begin to take responsibility for their own actions, it is not likely to improve.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So minorities are victimized and you blame the victim. Y'know they are trapped in it when they are children. Does that matter to you?. And the trap is created by the white powers that be. Does that matter to you?. Shouldn't the white drug dealers, smugglers, and money launderers accept responsibility for their actions. I mean their actions create a whole lot more victims and crime in our society than the small time drug addict (mostly white). No complaints from you about them. Why?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

If you want people to find the middle ground, sometimes you need to show it to them. What you are doing is trying to grab them by the hair and drag them to your side. Easy big guy.

Watch that video I linked for you.

[-] -3 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I don't know about your neighborhood, truly I do not. But in my neighborhood the drug dealers standing on the corner selling to the children are black people. And the multimillion dollar Colombian affiliated smugglers are black people.

First let me say for the record that I am pink in varying degrees, augmented by various brown pig-ments or splotches which I suspect are remnants of the distant past; this would label me upon first impression, for the purpose of visual identity, as "Caucasian," in America (Cauc-what? Can you say that one more time? Cauc-Asian, you say? Ok, "yearight," and "Whatever").

Do you have any idea what a whiteboy does when his Daddy's in jail and his mother is overdosed on the floor? Well, I do. Unfortunately, in America, there is a greater percentage of black mothers lying on the floor than there are white mothers. And drug addiction is a twenty to thirty year proposition - it destroys lives.

We have to stop blaming others and take some responsibility; there is no other way out of this Ghetto.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We disagree. Most violent crimes are committed by white people. The reason the prisons are full of minorities is because police target minorities and apply enforcement unequally, and because the courts give minorities jail time more often they do white people.

Didn't you say the justice system is unfair? Isn't that what you were talkin about.?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Dealer on the corner is small time.

Ignoring the real criminals (white organized crime lords, white smugglers, white bankers) betrays your prejudice against minorities.

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

That dealer on the corner works for a black multimillionaire who acquires his drugs directly from Columbia - there is no white middleman. And he not small time if he fulfills the function of retail advertizing and over the counter corner druggist.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They're the only ones with the resources. White people have always been at the center of organized crime. Is that a new impression for you. LMFAO.

You must be joking. You just don't want to admit that the real criminals in regards to the drug crimes in America are clearly at the feet of white people.

doesn't fit your comfortable suburban narrative. Most drug users are white! Most small violent drug crimes are perpetrated by whites! The drug trade is controlled by white run organized crime, All drug profits are laundered by white owned banks!

Shouldn't we be insisting that they take responsibility for their crimes? You give them a buy "'cause you don;t get the impression"? LMFAO.

Only the minority gets the cage with you. huh?

Please enough with you already Archie. We disagree. That's all. Lets stop going back and forth.

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I think you need to follow law enforcement efforts much more closely - drugs currently enter directly by way of the millionaire dealer of varying ethnicities. Wall Street may very well funnel profits but they do not control the trade.

And most low level violent crimes are not committed by white people; if that were true we would not have the current prison demographics. The prison is actually a much harsher environment for the white person; he lives in fear of prison.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The dealer on the corner is small time. If you go up the chain you always find a white guy. They are the only ones with the resources to perpetrate this massive a crime. So yeah people should take responsibility. The white people who created, and profit off the human misery they created. For you they don't even get a mention. Only the minorities who are their victims should suffer. Typical.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I don't know enough about the prime movers of the upper echelons to comment on that. But the impression I am getting is that they are employing thousands of regional multimillionaire dealers of varying ethnicities; the mail must go through, one rider fails, one multimillion dollar bust, has no impact whatsoever. I don't believe there is this vast network of whitemen currently controlling the drug trade; they may manage the profits, but not the trade itself.

The dealer on the corner is a vital link in this chain; it is he with his vast vendor network that actually creates the marketplace; without readily available product, there can be no market. So he has to be removed.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I honestly don't know enough about the primary movers, the main characters, of the upper echelons of the drug trade to comment on that. Regionally, I get the impression, the drug lords are employing thousands of multimillionaires of varying ethnicities. The mail must go through, one rider fails, one multimillion dollar bust, has no impact whatsoever. But I don't think there is this vast network of whitemen who currently control the drug trade here - they may very well manage the profit, but not the trade itself. That's just not the impression I'm getting.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Do you agree that the white drug kingpins have targeted the minorities. And if you think the justice system is deeply flawed why do you think the minorities deserve to be there. Is it not flawed when they cage the minority. Perhaps you think the flaw is in not arresting all the minorities.?

[-] -3 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

It's flawed in many ways... be that as it may, people who have committed crimes belong there because they have victimized others - with today's overcrowding, no one lands in jail for low level possession.

The kingpins targeted an entire US population; the blacks in particular have allowed themselves to be decimated. This is just one of those things; people need to start accepting responsibility for their own actions; lying to ourselves does not address the situation, how then do we address the source of our problem?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Cigarettes may be a black market problem in Canada - but not here in the USA.

Also Moonshine? not a problem - leastways not nationally - perhaps in certain small areas of the country.

Nope prohibition does not work.


[-] 1 points by funkytown (91) 24 minutes ago

You can't remove the market by legalizing it in light our government's willingness to tax - drugs will always be a blackmarket affair. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I don't know where you are in the USA but virtually all cigarettes are black marketed here. Twenty years ago I would have never believed a willingness to create the cost-prohibitive prohibition but here is it for the whole world to see. What's even more interesting is that they have installed a tax on purchase, or in other words, mere possession and not use. They could do the same for any product; it's just a question of gaining a majority public approbation, and bingo - they have another lucrative source of revenue. Heretofore I had never envisioned government to be so greedy - I didn't believe they possessed such desire or willingness.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

All kids that are living hand to mouth are involved with drugs - using them or selling them.

The way to go about stopping illegal drug sales. For 1 is to get good employment for living wages happening. For 2 ending prohibition = remove the need for illegal operations - kill the market by removing it.


[-] 1 points by funkytown (97) 8 minutes ago

I don't know enough about the prime movers of the upper echelons to comment on that. But the impression I am getting is that they are employing thousands of regional multimillionaire dealers of varying ethnicities; the mail must go through, one rider fails, one multimillion dollar bust, has no impact whatsoever. I don't believe there is this vast network of whitemen currently controlling the drug trade; they may manage the profits, but not the trade itself.

The dealer on the corner is a vital link in this chain; it is he with his vast vendor network that actually creates the marketplace; without readily available product, there can be no market. So he has to be removed. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


[-] 0 points by funkytown (97) 22 minutes ago

I honestly don't know enough about the primary movers, the main characters, of the upper echelons of the drug trade to comment on that. Regionally, I get the impression, the drug lords are employing thousands of multimillionaires of varying ethnicities. The mail must go through, one rider fails, one multimillion dollar bust, has no impact whatsoever. But I don't think there is this vast network of whitemen who currently control the drug trade here - they may very well manage the profit, but not the trade itself. That's just not the impression I'm getting. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

You can't remove the market by legalizing it in light our government's willingness to tax - drugs will always be a blackmarket affair.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"all crimes involve a victim".....not true at all.

So because two guys get in a fight, that means all rights to representation are thrown out the window?

You are a police state chief's dream...

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

All crimes involve a victim, yes... these aren't the oppressed that land in our jails, they are people who victimize others. And some 50 - 60% involve violent crime.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nah that sounds like republican propaganda. The new black panthers are all of 30 members. inconsequential. Acorn has never been found guilty of voter fraud. ACLU is doing the good work of trying to get ex felons their right to vote back.! Illegal immigrants do not vote! They avoid all authority, 'cause they are illegally here!!

Republicans deny ex felons voting rights in some places in an effort to suppress dem leaning votes. The repubs also have executed a plan that covers 38 states (38) to throw people off the voting rolls, add new voting requirements a few months before the election.

No comparison. Repubs are trying to steal another election 'cause they know it's the only way they can win.

End the electoral college. that'll do it! Mandatory voting for all eligible voters. It's what the 1% fears the most.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

No... the ACLU has actually been pushing to grant the vote to incarcerated felons - even those doing life sentences - and why do they do that? Well, because a significant portion of the black community is incarcerated. But many, like myself, do not believe the criminal should be empowered to decide government.

I agree, the Panthers are all washed up, largely as a result of senseless 60's violence.

But, Acorn was not found guilty? Get real.

And yes, as more and more polarize in cities, creating Dem enclaves, the electoral vote is definitely a problem for us. City demographics should not have the ability to cast a minority opinion that effects a rural majority. That's not consensus democracy and this is where the electoral college is going to fall apart.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Most people live in cities. "Rural majority"? that is untrue. There are more people in Brooklyn than 17 states! More people in NYC proper than 46 states!! End the elctoral college sham, One person one vote, and we will see how republicans never get another presidency. Add 1000 seats to the House and see how much better representation creates the progressive solutions we need to undo the damage of the right wing 1% plutocrat policies.

ACLU are great soldiers in protecting our rights. If they want to help the vast numbers of unfairly imprisoned African Americans then I support them.

ACORN had some minor voter registration issues that did not affect any votes. The destruction of ACORN was more right wing efforts at destroying a successful registration entity for democrats.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

How do you conclude that vast numbers of African Americans are unfairly imprisoned?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

War on drugs is unfairly used against minorities for the express purpose of destroying minorities job prospects, housing opportunities, remove eligibility for student aid, take away their voting rights, Some states now take away their rights to welfare benefits. More white peopledo drugs but vastly more minorities are targeted and therefore arrested. And minorities always get stiffer sentences while those few whites picked up mostly get their charges dropped or reduced.

Where you been? You unaware of this reality in our justice system?

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

No it's not... the war on drugs is intended to prevent victimization; its intent is to rid society of the ugliness of our drug culture. And it's very ugly. It has decimated our black subculture - some 70% of all criminals are African Americans - drugs are not the right or the light; they are not the might, they are not the way - they are destroying lives and families; they take people of promise and turn them into predators.

It's not because white people get a buy, it's because most ugly crime is committed by blacks. The Hispanics aren't looking too good either right now although their crimes tend more towards the alcohol induced or related incident.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please you don't sound real smart. Don't you know most drugs are done by white people? And you must know that most drug dealing is headed by white people. Did you notice the HSBC scandal regarding the decades of drug trafficking profit they got from the drug trade. More damage to society is done by white people regarding drug use. Black people are just the ones getting arrested and broadcast on tv.

Listen Archie we disagree. Put it to rest. You clearly have some bias against minorities because you refuse to see reality.

Good luck. I hope you get rid of the hate you spew, it only corrodes YOUR soul.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Above STATES rites - are HUMAN rights to fairness & equality -
ask an African-American in alabuma in 1950

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

You're wasting your time; you won't find compassion here related to issues of African slavery.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

So rights ARE to be decided by a STATE - if YOU say so?
Does a school board have the right to insist that creationism is taught?

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

They do if it's a religious community, absolutely. The real question is, should you as an individual of casual belief, have the right to dictate what they teach? And the answer is a definite NO.

And I would also say no to the state's rights question - only those of the community should determine what is taught; even further - beyond the three R's, only students themselves through influence of parent and teacher, should determine what is pursued. High school educational requirements are absolutely bogus.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

so if your community has a one child only requirement, they can force you to abort a second child?

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

In America, a one child requirement? haha...

We were talking about public education. Stay on subject, and try and focus, OK?

Ok, so repeat after me: Focus! And one more time: "Focus!"

It's no wonder we wonder about public education.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

If your community insisted on teaching Christianity in public school?
If your community insisted on teaching that condoms cause aids?

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Could you please for one second try and stay on subject?

I'm going to tell you something: America is all about diversity, it always has been. But having everything your way, or having everyone believe everything you do, is not celebrating diversity, it's monoculture. If this was an African American community, which incidentally will NEVER give up its God, would you even raise the question?

Some people fervently believe in Christianity. And they that's their business, not yours. You're not of their locale or of their community; you do not live their lives, and even if you did, you may not share their view.

In my community, at least 3/4s are religiously minded on some level and their children do receive a biblical education in some form. And anybody who closely follows science must conclude that Genesis is just as good an explanation as any; in fact, we could almost call it science in biblical language.

I don't buy abiogeneis at all. I don't believe that molecules can combine in a sterile world to create life. And even if that were possible, I don't believe there is but one tree of life, either - the one tree of life explanation that evolution proposes is based on a 2000 year history of Christian belief - doesn't anybody at all realize that? So we have two major, major, obstacles to overcome here before we can call modern scientific explanation "reasonable," because it's not.

We haven't proven God matter yet, either, and that's another matter.

But whatever... to each his or her own. I personally would never criticize anybody who desires more spirituality in their lives. Because anybody who thinks they will lead a happier, more fulfilling life, without some form of spirituality is simply in denial. Human beings simply do not have that ability.

I'd say, Hell Yea! Teach 'em about Creationism; if we fail to do that they will invent one of their own anyway. Because there are some 30,000 recognized religions in this world to support that belief, and virtually all of them contain the exact same structural tenets of our Creation theory.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Uhh, haha... do the history - our usury was not introduced by Christians. Even if it were, in the colonial Christian world all interest rates were set at a 5% maximum, anything more was "usury." And you are exactly right - Jesus, of whatever form, definitely lived and he WAS a dissident reformer. Absolutely.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Yea, definitely, Jesus was a liberal. And now I'm going to freak you out a little - so were the Puritans. Definitely. :)

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I've spent tremendous time on that particular area (and many, many, others) because at least three of my ancestors were accused. The answer is yes - the thing is, it wasn't the Christian that executed the witches (none in America were burned) - it was a Druidism usurped that turned to the Wisemen - now "magistrates" - to prosecute witches. And that, too, is an absolute fact. And one you will never find in the "scholarly" textbooks of America's educated, because they simply do not study enough. Druidism is alive and well in America, as tremendously incorporated. Shhh... don't tell anyone or they'll burn ya at the stake.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Thereaper88 (-30) 2 years ago

A.....hate.....crime.....

A.....hate.....crime.....

Just fucking.......wow..

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Can legislation be labeled as "criminal" or even prejudicial if equally applied? My feeling is that the right to vote in America should be earned; people must contribute to benefit; there must be prerequisites.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I think I'm perfectly within my limits though to say no one can eat here, and that's what this legislation does. I see nothing wrong with asking people to register to vote, in an effort to prevent the unfair advantage of the fraudulent vote. Also, it would seem to me that only people should vote, those non-human, reasonably speaking, should not be permitted to vote in elections that concern our people... if you are not of our people, this election does not concern you, and any vote cast is but a fraudulent vote. Likewise, no one can exist without some perceived identity, and one cannot have identity, if they cannot be identified - the nonexistent human being should not be permitted a vote, either.

The early vote denies who exactly? Those in the military stationed overseas? Who else is effected and in what manner and are those reasonable concerns? That's the only question that's applicable here.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"Also, it would seem to me that only people should vote, those non-human, reasonably speaking, should not be permitted to vote in elections that concern our people... if you are not of our people, this election does not concern you, and any vote cast is but a fraudulent vote. Likewise, no one can exist without some perceived identity, and one cannot have identity, if they cannot be identified - the nonexistent human being should not be permitted a vote, either."

Can we assume by this statement that you are also against the "Citizens United" ruling, granting the right of speech to a "non existent human being"?

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I support unrestricted free speech for all including those that choose to define their association as a corporation, should they be for profit or non-profit. What we need is not an amendment but additional legislation to curb the super-pac.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

End the super pac - money out of politics.

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Good idea - write the legislation; twist arms if you have to.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A major effort in this direction is the Move to Amend state by state campaign to remove corpoRAT personhood and remove money from politics. There are also petitions being circulated to force donation clarity - force the telling of who gave what to whom.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

No where in Citizens United does it reference personhood - no where. What is says, as well it should, is that free speech is an absolute. Liberals and PCers do not share that opinion, unfortunately. And either do conservatives. Who to whom is already in place as well as disclosure. Legislation then has to be more definitive.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. 130 S.Ct. 876
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy, found that 2 U.S.C. § 441(b)'s prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions was invalid and could not be applied to spending such as that in Hillary: The Movie. Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had previously held that a Michigan campaign finance act that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that upheld BCRA's extension of the Federal Election Campaign Act's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures to include "electioneering communications". The court's ruling effectively removed the limit on the amount corporations and unions can spend on "electioneering communications."

▬►The Court has recognized that First Amendment ◄▬
▬►..........protection extends to corporations.............. ◄▬

THESE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CU DECISION, ARE EXTENDED TO CORPORATIONS BY “JUDICIALLY” CREATED CORPORATE PERSONHOOD RIGHTS

The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311 (provisions requiring disclosure of the funder) were valid as applied to the ads for Clinton and to the movie itself. Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Alito joined, wrote separately "to address the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case". Chief Justice Roberts wrote to further explicate and defend the court's statement that "there is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication". The Chief Justice argued that there are times during which overruling prior decisions is necessary. Had the courts never gone against stare decisis, "segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants". Roberts' concurrence recited a plethora of case law in which the court had ruled against precedent. Ultimately, Roberts argued, "Stare decisis is a doctrine of preservation, not transformation.
It counsels deference to past mistakes, but provides no justification for making new ones." Justice Scalia joined the opinion of the Court, but also wrote a concurring opinion which was joined by
Justice Alito in full and by Justice Thomas in part. Scalia addressed Justice Stevens's dissent, specifically with regard to the notion that the court's decision was not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. Scalia stated that Stevens dissent was "in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why 'the freedom of speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form." He further considered the dissent’s exploration of the Framers’ views about the "role of corporations in society" to be misleading, and even if valid, irrelevant to the text. Scalia principally argued that the First Amendment was written in "terms of speech, not speakers" and that "Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker."


Citizens United & Corporate Personhood Amendment

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

For a complete analysis of the amendment issue,
and the text of all amendments,
and our comparison of all of the amendments,
and the Citizens United case transcript,
and the Citizens United decision,
and the Buckley decision,
and analysis of corporate personhood,
and analysis of Article III,
and the ABC News poll on CU / CP,
and the PFAW poll on CU / CP,
and 50+ videos on CU / CP from Chomsky, Hedges, Witchcraft, Reich, Warren, Lessig,
Hartmann, Maher, Sanders, Hightower, etc.
and our voting bloc petition & plan.

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
no password or signup
JOIN US>
OWS Working Group: http://nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy

YAHOO:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG

REGULAR MEETINGS:
Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Atrium

[-] -3 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I've read and studied the entire decision, where in that decision does it mention "personhood"? It's a media creation.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So then it should be easy to end it. Did you also read the 19th Century scotus decisions related to this? Goes back pretty far.

In any event money is not speech, & I will know corps are people when Texas executes one.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MadInMedford (-15) 2 years ago

Which 19th century SCOTUS decisions - specifically - are you referring to? I will withhold further comment pending your citations.

[-] -3 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

yes I have...

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

So you seriously dont see this quote from CU as referncing "personhood"


▬►The Court has recognized that First Amendment ◄▬
▬►..........protection extends to corporations.......... ◄▬

THESE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CU DECISION, ARE EXTENDED TO CORPORATIONS BY “JUDICIALLY” CREATED CORPORATE PERSONHOOD RIGHTS


If it does not, where do coprorations get these rights?


[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

Let attempt to phrase that in a manner you will understand... the right of an association of individuals, as incorporated, either for profit or not for profit, shall not be "abridged." The association as a body of people, incorporated or otherwise, has a right to voice a concerted opinion - political parties do it everyday; the media through news stations, newspapers, ect - does it every day. Had the SC struck this down it would have had the effect of denying all a voice in politics, through electronic means, within thirty days of an election.

No where does it say that the corporation is a person - nowhere - it says it's a body of people. And bodies of people are comprised of individual persons that are legally entitled in America to free speech. This began because the Obama administration did not believe that a conservative corporation had a right to make derogatory statements directed at Hilary, on pay-per-view, within 30 days of the nomination. It was bogus.

Citizens United was absolutely a correct opinion. Perhaps what we need to do now, is create new legislation to accurately address our concerns.

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The super pac is unrestricted free speech. Any legislation enacted will be a restriction on that speech.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It's not free speech it is bought speech.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Good point.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"The super pac is unrestricted free speech. Any legislation enacted will be a restriction on that speech." EXCELLENT
The perfect explicit statement that corporations ARE people.


The First amendment ONLY guarantees free speech for people


not for corporations or unions or non-profits

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I'm as against Citizen's United as you are. From a purely legal perspective a corporation does have the right of free speech. Should we ban all television commercials because a non human entity paid for them? Should the DNC be banned from airing a commercial?

I would prefer to place a limit on political speech that would apply to all people, groups, parties, non profits, corporations. $100 limit per candidate per election cycle. This would preserve the right of free speech and at the same time insure fair speech.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Either corporations ARE people with all of the constitutional rights of any person ( as granted to them by not a single law - granted by courts only ) OR
they have the rights granted to them as the founders designated - deligated to STATE LAW.


for example, if a corporation does not have freedom of speech, a LAW passed by the people's representatives that a corporation can advertise only honest information about their own products for example, if a corporation does not have protection of warrantless searches, the FDA can go into a food factory a nd inspect it with no notice.


all politcal ads should come from candidates - paid for by limited donations
not from super-pacs or churches or unions


the first amendment says we cannot have any limits on free speech, so we MUST begin with an amendment that state money is not speech.


Citizens United & Corporate Personhood Amendment

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

For a complete analysis of the amendment issue,
and the text of all amendments,
and our comparison of all of the amendments,
and the Citizens United case transcript,
and the Citizens United decision,
and the Buckley decision,
and analysis of corporate personhood,
and analysis of Article III,
and the ABC News poll on CU / CP,
and the PFAW poll on CU / CP,
and 50+ videos on CU / CP from Chomsky, Hedges, Witchcraft, Reich, Warren, Lessig,
Hartmann, Maher, Sanders, Hightower, etc.
and our voting bloc petition & plan.

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
no password or signup
JOIN US>
OWS Working Group: http://nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy

YAHOO:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG

REGULAR MEETINGS:
Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Atrium

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If you can come up with a better way of limiting corporate, union, wealthy, special interest political speech I am for it.

It will be a major battle no matter what strategy is employed. Let's say that corporations are silenced in political speech. Won't people like Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, and the rest of the wealthy keep on speaking just as loudly with their own money? All they have to do is divert more corporate money to their personal fortunes to pay for what voice the corporations lost.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

PLEASE see our site
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
40+ documents
50+ videos
support a simple amendment answer:
1 corporations are not people
2 money is not speech
3 then Mccain-Fiengold automatically is re-enabled & ANY other laws can be passed by congress


the punch line to this story is that 75%-85% of Americans
ALREADY SUPPORT THIS!!!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

A vote for a candidate that receives super pac money is a vote for political oppression. Super pac political ads are oppression!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If the people truly supported anti Citizens United legislation, why do they continue to vote in overwhelming numbers for candidates who are the recipients of this money?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

There can be NO "anti CU legislation. " CU is a SCOTUS decision -
that can ONLY be change by SCOTUS or an amendment
If you are anti-CU, vote for candidates that support an amendment
[ there are over a dozen amendment bills already in congress ]
our web site analyzes them all
go there & tell me which one you prefer

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

nope only repubs are suppressing the vote

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

sort of like slavery & teaching the bible in school & creationism

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 2 years ago

I think there are two sides to this, yea. Public education performs a dual service - it must not only educate but also acculturate. How that acculturation is defined is a national matter, which should be defined by national consensus and not by the Federal government or by any Federal advisory board. Acculturation is but a byword for identity, and it is an American identity, which draws on unbiased, accurate, historical evidence that must be presented. This was the original intent of all public education.

I personally see nothing wrong with religious communities incorporating religious teachings in an approved, three R's, curriculum of locally, publicly funded education.

Ultimately, it is those who pay for educational services that must define its scope. If it were up to me, no school district in America would ever accept Federal funding, and no one would be forced to also pay a dual tuition on the local level, for both a public school system their children will not attend, and for a private education should they opt for a more religiously oriented curriculum. There is such a thing as religious freedom - no one who desires their children receive greater religious exposure should be forced to pay a dual tuition fee; no one should be forced to financially support a church he will not attend. But that's exactly what happens in America with respect to education.

If you do not live in that community, if you do not contribute to their educational system, then who are you to say anything at all? The fact that you agree or disagree is immaterial - it doesn't concern you.

I think education in America is an entirely bogus, corrupt, corporate institution that is entirely self serving and leaves all, of any aptitude, wholly unprepared for life in America.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

It will be difficult for the GOP to outdo this vote suppressor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=BzSBrEPTOU4&NR=1

[-] 0 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

Do you think in only black and white? or Do you think in only white and black?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I think in terms of WINNERS
I know you wont like that -
but consider where we would be if 2010
gave us 50 progressive winners in stead of 50 regressive winners
November is soon

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We could actually be getting some good things done.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

It'd probably be like 2008. In fact, it pretty much was.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

So are you upset that Occupy Charlotte will be protesting at the Democratic National Convention? Or are all of the donations that the Democrats get fom Wall Street alright since they aren't Republicans?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Making our voice heard is good
violence is always bad
I was part of the anti-Vietnam war movement
I regret the 1968 DNC convention that gave us nixon

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Every convention should be protested. Wake-up America!!!!

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I agree. I also think it is silly to pick sides when both are being bought by the 1%.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

There is still a major difference between the two parties - the Repubs are almost entirely bought and paid for - but the corpoRATs are having a more difficult time buying up all of the Dems.

[-] -1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

And voting for either the corporate benefited D or the corporate benefited R will give you 50 regressive "winners".

You think there's actually a difference between the two parties...

Even if you're voting for "the lesser of two evils", your vote still goes to the side of evil.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

tell that to the people who will be added to Medicaid
or ask a GM employee
do you know anyone with a pre-existing condition?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

One party is suppressing votes, the other isn't. Is that a meaningful difference?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/13/michael-tomasky-on-how-the-gop-plans-to-block-the-black-vote.html

[-] 0 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 2 years ago

And is the other party doing anything meaningful to stop voter suppression? They wouldn't do anything about it unless it affects their chance at election--which it currently does. And they're obviously not doing enough, because this wouldn't even be an issue if they were.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The Admin Atty Gen has stopped several states voter suppression efforts by citing civil rights era fed authority over the deep southern states whose jim crow voter suppression efforts led to voting rights legislation.

State Dem organizations as well as ACLU ( and others) have also stopped some states efforts with protests and legal action. Others are still in the court system.

So the Dems are making real efforts, but it is still an issue because it is wrong to suppress Americans votes. You don't care?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28122) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep. Difference. Noticeable Difference.

[Removed]