GOP FRAUD

quote:

---

Citizenship comes with responsibilities as well as rights. You asked for my opinion. That's it.

---

Your opinion is gibberish. I do not get to choose the state into which I am to be born. I may - or may not - acquire meaningful rights. According to your forumaltion I also acquire responsibilities just be being born.So once again: do I serve the state, or does the state serve me? Is this an autocracy or a democracy?Both the alleged "rights" and the alleged responsibilities are simply imposed. This argument is a coimplete nonsense; the principle of rights granted to citizens is NOT balanced by a reuirement for responsibilities, becuase this is NOT a voluntary relationship entered into as if a contract. The state imposes this package on the individual willy nilly - and it is therefore entirely legimiate to construct duties that the state owes the citizen. The state is the servant of the citizen, allegedly.

contracycle writes:

quote:

---

This argument is a coimplete nonsense; the principle of rights granted to citizens is NOT balanced by a reuirement for responsibilities, becuase this is NOT a voluntary relationship entered into as if a contract.

---

Oh, not the Libertarian bullshit of "I never signed no steenkin' social contract!"Yes, you did. You remained a citizen. Don't like it? Give up your citizenship. Your parents made that decision for you when you were born because you were incapable of giving consent, but you are now an adult and are free to leave if you so choose.

quote:

---

The state imposes this package on the individual willy nilly - and it is therefore entirely legimiate to construct duties that the state owes the citizen.

---

Of course. Those are what we call "rights."And in return, it is entirely legitimate to construct duties that the citizen owes to the state. Those are what we call "responsibilities."

quote:

---

The state is the servant of the citizen, allegedly.

---

True, but the state cannot function without the effort of the citizen. Shirk your responsibilities and you will never get your rights.No man is an island.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

paisano responds to me:

quote:

---

For you to argue that these laws were directed against blacks, and only blacks

---

(*ahem*)Who said it was only blacks? After all, white people commit crimes, too.However, the police force tended to be white and the police force tended to be racist and the police force would tend to charge black people with crime.Are you saying it has never occurred to you that a racist structure that wanted to keep black people down might crack down on blacks, trying to find any reason at all to make them be felons in order to prevent them from voting?We see this to this day when it comes to gays and straights. The heterosexuals up at Lover's Lane get a tap on the windshield and a warning to "move it along." The gays who are doing the exact same thing get rounded up and become "registered sex offenders."

quote:

---

is dependent on the following (racist) assumptions

---

Incorrect. You have it completely backwards. It isn't that black people were more likely to commit crime. It's that with expanded lists of crimes to which disenfranchisement is attached, it is now much easier for those who want to keep black people from voting from doing so.If I recall correctly, one-quarter of all black men in Florida are disenfranchised due to felony convictions. You don't really think that the reason Jeb hasn't done anything about it is because he's been too busy with other things, do you?It is a national trend, after all: Republicans have a small but loyal voting bloc. They show up every single time. Thus, it is to the Republicans' advantage to decrease voter turnout.Democrats, on the other hand, have a large but intermittent voting bloc. There are more of them, but they don't always show up to vote. Thus, it is to the Democrats' advantage to increase voter turnout.And when we look at the activities that have been happening, especially during this last election cycle, this is exactly what we see: Democrats on the whole are doing everything they can to get more people registered to vote and get them to the polls. Republicans, on the other hand, are doing everything they can to stop people from showing up to vote.This isn't to say that there are no Democratic ploys to destroy Republican registrations. However, you find that when Democratic people are trying to stop people from voting, it is usually smaller, locally created groups. When Republicans do it, it goes all the way up to the RNC in a nationwide campaign.Let us not forget that the supposed "riots" in Florida when a recount was trying to be conducted were funded and staged by Republicans. The "rioters" weren't even Floridians but were flown in from out of state specifically to cause enough unrest that the recount couldn't happen.On top of that, the "voter intent" standard in Florida was the exact same standard that Bush had signed in Texas when he was governor. Why would he be against it now?In the end, of course, no recount was ever done until months later. And you know what they found out? By every standard, Gore won. The only reason Bush is president is because the SCOTUS made him so in complete violation of the Constitution: Elections are matters left to the State and the Federal government has no jurisdiction.

quote:

---

In addition, 1868 was during Reconstruction.

---

Which only proves my point. Florida was part of the racist South. They were not looking to have their lives handed over to a bunch of people who used to be their slaves. So since they couldn't simply say that black people can't vote, they came up with a bunch of other ways that would prevent them from voting.There used to be a "grandfather" law. That is, if your grandfather couldn't vote, then neither could you. How convenient that for generations, blacks couldn't vote. Therefore, no black person could vote after the Civil War.

quote:

---

Florida was under Union occupation and the laws were being written by a Union government that took great pains to enfranchise blacks.

---

It isn't like the Union was all that egalitarian. And you're confusing the writing of the Florida Constitution with the writing of the local laws.

quote:

---

You are going to have to do a much better job than that proving that the Florida Constitution is directed against blacks.

​

I triple dog dare you

---

I already did. The fact that you are incapable of seeing it is not my problem.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Actually, you've still proven nothing. At best, you've established that some racist laws were passed in Florida in the Jim Crow era (late 1870's to early 1960's. A point I was prepared to concede.You've done zero, however, to PROVE ( as opposed to invite us to share your biases and preconceptions) that PRESENT Florida law is primarily and consciously intended to disenfranchise blacks in general.My contention is that it is primarily intended to disenfranchise criminals,and place the burden of proof on the criminals that they have become law abiding and deserve to be treated as such.If you want to make the case that felons should be liberally re-enfranchised , do so.I disagree. I think felons, especially violent felons, should be harshly and severely punished, regardless of race or other irrelevant factors, and I applaud, and vote for, politicians who advocate such positions.

If they make a law that says that its illegal to sleep under bridges, don't you think that's harder on the homeless than on the richm even though the law applies to everybody?If they go ahead and pass that law, knowing that it's unfairly harder on the homeless, doesn't that law then constitute discrimination against the homeless?Anatole France sure thought so.

What do the homeless have to do with Rrhain's line of argument (such as it is )? Does society have an interest in discouragting homelessness? Are laws against it a legitimate tactic. All separate topics.I think Rrhain needs to cite exactly what defined felonies he thinks are defined solely to have disproportionate efefct on blacks.If blacks are committing disproportionate numbers of murders, rapes, aggraveated assaults, armed robberies...I'm afraid I am quite unsympathetic to pleas for differential treatment.If on the other hand there are felonies defined as boliling down to "being black", I am willing to listen. The only thing I can think of where there may be an indirect effect are certain drug crimes...I've already stated elsewhere I think drug laws are too harsh in general, but need to be changed through the legislative process.As far as Rrhain's contention that the Republican base is "quite small"..he needs to get off campus now and then, or get some better statistics.This message has been edited by paisano, 10-31-2004 07:27 PM

Think it through. A law can be discriminatory even though it doesn't single anybody out by name. Well, they're not, to my knowledge. At least not compared to persons in their same economic level.On the other hand, they do tend to be convicted of those crimes more, and serve longer sentences. Well, as I understand it, most drug users are white. Most people serving actual sentences for drug crimes are black. Draw your own conclusions, I guess. Or you do. It's well-known that Democrats have a slight lead in party affiliation, nationally, while at the same time trailing in voter turnout. And it's not surprising that that is so; Republican policies, especially the economic policies, are calculated to benefit relatively few people. For instance, that's why we've seen middle-class incomes shrink for the past 3 years despite at least two tax cuts from Bush.

A slight lead, which has been steadily eroding for a generation. Approximately 1/3 of the electorate is independent, as well. To say that's debatable is to indulge in gross understatement. It's a whole new thread, in fact. Non-sequitur. We'd expect the trailing effect of the tax cuts to show up over a longer timeframe, as indeed they are beginning to do, even if there were not the effects of war.IMO, the tax cuts prevented a depression. Again, another thread.

Getting off-topic. Were you going to respond to my on-topic points?

paisano responds to me:

quote:

---

At best, you've established that some racist laws were passed in Florida in the Jim Crow era (late 1870's to early 1960's. A point I was prepared to concede.

---

But that was the precise point which you denied.Here was my original statement: And now you say you concede the point? Then what on earth were we arguing about?

quote:

---

You've done zero, however, to PROVE ( as opposed to invite us to share your biases and preconceptions) that PRESENT Florida law is primarily and consciously intended to disenfranchise blacks in general.

---

(*ahem*)If the original disenfranchisement laws were designed to keep blacks from voting and the current Republican administration is continuing its efforts to make it more difficult for felons to regain enfranchisement and if black people are more likely to be felons, what on earth do you think is going on?Your argument boils down to "It is illegal for a rich man to sleep under a bridge, therefore laws about sleeping under bridges do not target the poor since both rich and poor can be charged with it." That wasn't accepted jurisprudence when it first came up and it is still considered invalid.

quote:

---

My contention is that it is primarily intended to disenfranchise criminals

---

But with blacks more likely to be part of the criminal system and with blacks more likely to vote against Republicans, what do you think the point of a Republican administration is in making it more difficult to regain voting rights?It is naive in the extreme to think that the makeup of the prison population has nothing to do with it.Why do you think that it is the REPUBLICAN party that is dispatching six thousand "challengers" to the Ohio polls? Do you seriously think that they're going to be challenging middle- and upper-class white people?

quote:

---

I think felons, especially violent felons, should be harshly and severely punished

---

What on earth does that have to do with those who have served their time and are now free? What on earth does that have to do with removing a single piece of paper from the release package that shows you how to file an appeal to regain your right to vote?Do you not understand? What Bush did was not enact disenfranchisement laws. What he did was make sure that people who were disenfranchised DO NOT KNOW HOW TO GET THEIR RIGHTS BACK.What on earth is he afraid of? All that piece of paper tells you is how to go about it. It doesn't guarantee that you'll get the right to vote back. It simply tells you how to try to do so.Why on earth would anybody who cared about free elections try to stop people who can vote from voting? By your logic, there would be no problem if a governor decided that the mass mailing of voter guides by the state which showed the sample ballot and included the polling location were a drain on the state's budget and ought to be removed."Those who care will do what it takes to find out," right?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

No. You asserted, and I refuted, the following points:1) The Florida Constitution was written to dienfranchise blacks.2) Current Florida law was written to consciously disenfranchise blacks.Jim Crow era laws, since repealed, and in violation of the 1964 Voting Rights Act, are irrelevant, especially to point 2). What's going on is a classic case of affirming the consequent on your part. To ensure that the letter of Ohio election law is being followed.

A reply to message #53 and #27 in this thread would be much appreciated.Also, I was REALLY wondering what your comments are regarding the study that showed a huge gap in voter knowledge depending upon which man the person supported in the election.Specifically, I was interested to know your thoughts regarding the fact that Bush supporters were MORE likely to believe that WMD were in Iraq and that Iraq was very involved in 9/11 after both notions were thoroughly debunked by the investigators.Razd started a thread on it called "Gap in Voter Knowledge"This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-02-2004 06:54 PM

paisano writes:

quote:

---

As far as Rrhain's contention that the Republican base is "quite small"..he needs to get off campus now and then, or get some better statistics.

---

I've got a better idea. You need to learn how to read.Nowhere did I ever say or even hint that the Republican base was "quite small."What I said was that Republicans have a smaller number of voters than Democrats. However, Republicans have more dedicated voters than Democrats.That is, there are more Democrats than there are Republicans, but Republicans are more likely to vote. That is the reason why we see the trend that we see: When voter turnout is high, Democrats tend to win (there are more of them). When voter turnout is low, Republicans tend to win (they are more likly to stick around).

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

paisano responds to me:

quote:

---

No. You asserted, and I refuted, the following points:

​

1) The Florida Constitution was written to dienfranchise blacks.

---

I never said any such thing! Are you incapable of reading? Message 22: Now tell me, does that sound like the laws disenfranchising voters were written into the Constitution? Or does it sound like a reaction to the fact that the Constitution required blacks having the right to vote?You do understand the difference between the constitution and a law, yes?

quote:

---

2) Current Florida law was written to consciously disenfranchise blacks.

---

Try again. You will see my exact words above.Does 1868 sound like "current" anything to you? Unless you are trying to weasel out by saying "current" means "as we have it today" as opposed to "recently enacted," I simply did not say what you claim I did.

quote:

---

Jim Crow era laws, since repealed, and in violation of the 1964 Voting Rights Act, are irrelevant, especially to point 2).

---

The disenfranchisement laws are still on the books, paisano. They were written to disenfranchise blacks. They're still enforced.

quote:

---

What's going on is a classic case of affirming the consequent on your part.

---

Incorrect. Affirming the consequent is A -> B. B, therefore A.Instead, I am simply following logic: A -> B. A, therefore B.Racist organizations engage in racist actions. The Republicans are a racist organization. Therefore, they engage in racist actions.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why do you think that it is the REPUBLICAN party that is dispatching six thousand "challengers" to the Ohio polls?

---

​

To ensure that the letter of Ohio election law is being followed.

---

Right...because the poll workers are incapable of doing the job they were trained for.You didn't answer my question, though:Do you seriously think they're going to challenge white, middle- and upper-class voters?In a new twist, the feds had to enact a restraining order against the Republicans to stop intimidating Indians from voting by following them to the polls and writing down their license plate numbers.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

That's why you're affirming the consequent. You haven't even come close to proving this. It's strictly an unsupported and rather scurrilous assertion on your part.I suppose Powell, Rice, Clarence Thomas, Rod Paige, Michael Steele (lieutentant governor of Maryland), Larry D. Thompson (deputy attorney general - yes, Ashcroft's deputy) etc. aren't "real blacks" ?Or Jeanette Bradley..lieutenant governor of....OHIO ?David Duke is unwelcome in the Republican Party. Trent Lott was kicked out of his Senate leadership post. Pat Buchanan is gone.Meanwhile, the Democrats had Al Sharpton, a man easily as racist as David Duke, as a Presidential nominee.It's hard to take you seriously after this.