ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

Grant · Mar 10, 2012

Karl said:
All that worked just fine until Republicans began to scheme how they could further discourage potential Democratic voters from participating in elections (which has been their modus operandi for over a generation).

And the major thrust of that nefarious scheme is to ensure that only those eligible to vote are the ones casting their ballots?

I can see why the Democrats would do everything they could to fight against such a plan. They would lose their base.

Karl · Mar 10, 2012

Grant said:
Ahh, yes! When there is nowhere else for a leftist to go they retreat to charges of racism. [...]

The right is swaddled in racism. Has been so for decades. Ergo, it is not a charge, but merely an observation of historical fact.

1981: GOP Strategist Discusses Use of Racist Appeals, Code Words in Campaign Strategies

Lee Atwater. [Source: NNDB (.com)]Republican political strategist Lee Atwater, in a discussion with political science professor Alexander Lamis, discusses the Republican strategy of using racism to win elections. Lamis will later quote Atwater in his book Southern Politics in the 1990s. Atwater takes Lamis through the evolution of Republican appeals to racism: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N_gger, n_gger, n_gger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘n_gger’—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘N_gger, n_gger.’” Atwater will go on to manage the 1988 presidential campaign of George H. W. Bush, where he will oversee the use of what is considered one of the most overtly racist campaign ads in modern history, the “Willie Horton” ad (see September 21 - October 4, 1988). [New York Times, 10/6/2005]

History Commons: Republican Party

Ockham · Mar 10, 2012

Karl said:
The right is swaddled in racism. Has been so for decades. Ergo, it is not a charge, but merely an observation of historical fact.

Historical fact is the Democratic party is the racist party. I believe Democrats are the only party which had a former KKK recruiter as one of it's oldest and most prominent Congressional members. Jim Crow laws? Product of the Democrats. Segregation in Woodrow Wilson's White House? Absolutely...

Keep trying to change history Karl. I love correcting you and you certainly keep me busy. :wink:

Karl · Mar 10, 2012

Grant said:
And the major thrust of that nefarious scheme is to ensure that only those eligible to vote are the ones casting their ballots? [....]

Since we all know that there are statistically no ineligible people voting -- that would be deterred by the Republican government photo ID laws -- the nefarious scheme is the huge scam which your post promulgates.

It would be like passing a law that everyone must wear a tin foil hat to prevent abduction by aliens. There is an urgent need for that law; it would benefit millions, as well as the integrity of the country as a whole. As a side benefit, we could all begin receiving the right wing moonbeam transmissions that are apparently the source of some of the posts we see around here

Karl · Mar 10, 2012

Ockham said:
Historical fact is the Democratic party is the racist party. I believe Democrats are the only party which had a former KKK recruiter as one of it's oldest and most prominent Congressional members. Jim Crow laws? Product of the Democrats. Segregation in Woodrow Wilson's White House? Absolutely...

Keep trying to change history Karl. I love correcting you and you certainly keep me busy. :wink:

Go sell that snake oil at the next NAACP convention.... then tell us what you learned about history

Grant · Mar 10, 2012

Karl said:
The right is swaddled in racism. Has been so for decades. Ergo, it is not a charge, but merely an observation of historical fact.

"The right is swaddled in racism" which is why you have to go back to 1981 to quote a man who can't defend himself.

That's quite a web site you referred me too, btw! Love those creative conspiracy theories!

Ockham · Mar 10, 2012

Karl said:
Go sell that snake oil at the next NAACP convention.... then tell us what you learned about history

It's even on Wiki - is Wiki now part of the "snake oil" :lamo

Grant · Mar 10, 2012

Karl said:
Since we all know that there are statistically no ineligible people voting -- that would be deterred by the Republican government photo ID laws -- the nefarious scheme is the huge scam which your post promulgates.

It would be like passing a law that everyone must wear a tin foil hat to prevent abduction by aliens. There is an urgent need for that law; it would benefit millions, as well as the integrity of the country as a whole. As a side benefit, we could all begin receiving the right wing moonbeam transmissions that are apparently the source of some of the posts we see around here

Did you steal this idea from History Commons?

Grant · Mar 10, 2012

Karl said:
Go sell that snake oil at the next NAACP convention.... then tell us what you learned about history

If you feel he's in error why not point out where?

You can't.

Ockham · Mar 10, 2012

Grant said:
Did you steal this idea from History Commons?

Are you suggesting Karl simply regurgitates misinformation without really understanding it or regurgitates it with full understanding and manipulative tendencies? :lol:

Karl · Mar 10, 2012

Grant said:
If you feel he's in error why not point out where? You can't.

I won't. The validity of his claim is the same as if he had said the world was flat. There is no need for an intelligent person to point out the details of the error.

However, I will note that since the vast majority of black people vote Democrat, and his claim is that the Democrats are the racists, would mean that he is inferring that black people are too stupid to know which party to vote for to preserve their own self interests -- which is a racist inference. So, by playing fast and lose with context (historically the South has been racist, while the North has opposed racism, regardless of political party affiliation -- and there was a big shift to the Republican party affiliation in the south when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed), the claim that Democrats are racists is -- in and of itself -- racist.

How ya like them apples?

The right will never be able to shed its racist roots; their best bet would be to put it behind them and look to the future, shedding their racist ways (such as these goofy photo ID laws and other attempts over recent history to disenfranchise the black vote) and putting their best foot forward. And trust me, that best foot is not Newt Gingrich (in fact, he's one of your problems).

Edit: the ad homs are the sign of a lost argument, fellas....

Grant · Mar 10, 2012

Karl said:
Karl said:

I won't. The validity of his claim is the same as if he had said the world was flat. There is no need for an intelligent person to point out the details of the error.

Click to expand...

Karl, you're really not all that intelligent. You should address the points he made and not cut and run.

The right will never be able to shed its racist roots; their best bet would be to put it behind them and look to the future, shedding their racist ways (such as these goofy photo ID laws and other attempts over recent history to disenfranchise the black vote)

Click to expand...

So you believe Black people needing photo ID in order to vote, just like everyone else does, is somehow "racist"? How so? All races would need it. Why should it effect Blacks more than any others?

Dittohead not! · Mar 10, 2012

Grant said:
Karl, you're really not all that intelligent. You should address the points he made and not cut and run.

So you believe Black people needing photo ID in order to vote, just like everyone else does, is somehow "racist"? How so? All races would need it. Why should it effect Blacks more than any others?

Click to expand...

Everyone knows that all blacks look alike. One photo ID would work for all of them.

Well, maybe one for males and one for females.

Ockham · Mar 11, 2012

Karl said:
I won't.

Actually it's "you can't", without providing some alternate universe history.

I love being right and you make it so easy Karl....

MoSurveyor · Mar 11, 2012

Ockham said:
Historical fact is the Democratic party is the racist party. I believe Democrats are the only party which had a former KKK recruiter as one of it's oldest and most prominent Congressional members. Jim Crow laws? Product of the Democrats. Segregation in Woodrow Wilson's White House? Absolutely...

Keep trying to change history Karl. I love correcting you and you certainly keep me busy. :wink:

Did someone miss the 1960's change (it was referenced right here in this thread) when people like Wallace were no longer wanted in the Democratic Party, at which point the majority of southern whites started turning to the GOP to continue baring the banner?

I love Teddy Roosevelt, a leader of Republicans in his day (in fact he's in my avatar and sig), but that doesn't mean I love today's Republicans and what they generally represent.

Ed:
Grant argued you can't go back 30 years to make a point (which I would refute because a whole lot of voters were adults 30 years ago) and you're trying to go back 90 years! Denying that any organization doesn't change a little over time is insane. Denying anything in politics persists more than a few decades (as long as living voters can remember) is worse.

Grant · Mar 11, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Did someone miss the 1960's change (it was referenced right here in this thread) when people like Wallace were no longer wanted in the Democratic Party, at which point the majority of southern whites started turning to the GOP to continue baring the banner?

So you're of the opinion that it was Republicans, and not Democrats, who were voting for George Wallace.

Is that correct?

Ed:
Grant argued you can't go back 30 years to make a point (which I would refute because a whole lot of voters were adults 30 years ago) and you're trying to go back 90 years! Denying that any organization doesn't change a little over time is insane. Denying anything in politics persists more than a few decades (as long as living voters can remember) is worse.[/QUOTE]

Dickieboy · Mar 11, 2012

Karl said:
However, I will note that since the vast majority of black people vote Democrat, and his claim is that the Democrats are the racists, would mean that he is inferring that black people are too stupid to know which party to vote for to preserve their own self interests -- which is a racist inference. So, by playing fast and lose with context (historically the South has been racist, while the North has opposed racism, regardless of political party affiliation -- and there was a big shift to the Republican party affiliation in the south when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed), the claim that Democrats are racists is -- in and of itself -- racist.

How do you explain Robert Byrd? Not ‘southern’, not ‘Republican’, member of the KKK and not ‘racist’?

Edit: the ad homs are the sign of a lost argument, fellas....

CLASSIC hypocrisy as your use of ad hom’ is relentless.

Grant · Mar 11, 2012

Ed:
Grant argued you can't go back 30 years to make a point (which I would refute because a whole lot of voters were adults 30 years ago) and you're trying to go back 90 years! Denying that any organization doesn't change a little over time is insane. Denying anything in politics persists more than a few decades (as long as living voters can remember) is worse.

You can quote me directly, and I did not say what you claim i said. There is too much of the disregard for facts going on here, and always from the Leftists.

MoSurveyor · Mar 11, 2012

Grant said:
You can quote me directly, and I did not say what you claim i said. There is too much of the disregard for facts going on here, and always from the Leftists.

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand your point here?

Grant said:
"The right is swaddled in racism" which is why you have to go back to 1981 to quote a man who can't defend himself.

It seemed to me you were saying going back 30 years wasn't a good reference?
Or were you saying quoting a dead man isn't a good reference?

What were you saying if none of the above apply?

Ed:
And either way it would apply Woodrow Wilson - unless you have chosen "none of the above".

MoSurveyor · Mar 11, 2012

Grant said:
So you're of the opinion that it was Republicans, and not Democrats, who were voting for George Wallace.

Is that correct?

No it isn't.

AdamT · Mar 11, 2012

Grant said:
So you're of the opinion that it was Republicans, and not Democrats, who were voting for George Wallace.

It was Southern Democrats, whose present-day equivalents are Republicans, who voted for him. And the civil rights movement, and subsequent legislation, is the reason that demographic left the Democratic Party to join the Republicans.

History is not on your side here.

upsideguy · Mar 11, 2012

Cephus said:
No, conservatives are against unnecessary regulation. Rebublicans, no matter what label they like to wear, are rarely actual conservatives.

Are you obfuscating my point by twisting off in the distinction between Republicans and Conservatives or agreeing this is an unnecessary regulation that no right-minded conservative would support?

upsideguy · Mar 11, 2012

muciti said:
What makes this unnecessary?

There is no problem to be solved, so why have a regulation?

Again, my understanding is that conservatives do not believe in unnecessary government interference/regulation. My point is this is an example of conservative hypocrisy as conservatives are not against regulation per se, in fact, they love regulations that benefit them.

Grant · Mar 11, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
I'm sorry, did I misunderstand your point here? It seemed to me you were saying going back 30 years wasn't a good reference?
Or were you saying quoting a dead man isn't a good reference?

If "The right is swaddled in racism" as you claim, why is it necessary to go back 30 years to quote someone who is no longer alive to defend the accuracy or veracity of the quote?

"Swaddled" would suggest commonplace, which means you should be able to find dozens of contemporaries around who are obvious racists.

What were you saying if none of the above apply?

It should be clear now.

Grant · Mar 11, 2012

AdamT said:
It was Southern Democrats,

Exactly. It was Democrats who enacted racism, Jim Crow laws, etc., not Republicans.

whose present-day equivalents are Republicans, who voted for him.

Really? So present day Republicans are not allowing Black students into white only schools, have enacted Jim Crow laws, and so on? Perhaps an example or three might be in order.

And the civil rights movement, and subsequent legislation, is the reason that demographic left the Democratic Party to join the Republicans.

And you have polls to demonstrate this to be the case? Surveys? You've talked to these people?

History is not on your side here.

I prefer facts on my side rather than your version of history. You're confusing your conditioned beliefs with facts,

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

Grant

Karl

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Karl

Karl

Grant

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Grant

Grant

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Karl

Grant

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

MoSurveyor

Grant

Dickieboy

Grant

MoSurveyor

MoSurveyor

AdamT

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Grant

Grant