Lawless

[paft.livejournal.com]

As I was saying:

Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:

If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.

Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:

This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.

This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.

This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.

I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.

The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.

They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.

And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.

I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.

But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.

Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

Suppressing the black vote.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think the GOP was/is doing that.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Then what do you imagine the rationale was behind voter caging, misleading flyers, intimidation and other "voter integrity" programs that were aimed primarily at black neighborhoods?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's as useful a question as "when did you stop beating your wife?"

[paft.livejournal.com]

"When did you stop beating your wife?" is, in fact, a very useful question to address someone who has a documented and consistent history of beating his wife.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Ok, so we're down to you just being deliberately obtuse.

[paft.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not the one being deliberately obtuse here. The Republican party has a well documented history of suppressing the black vote. You denied that they Republican Party was attempting to suppress the black voter. Given the fact that the Republicans have been repeatedly caught engaging in voter caging, intimidation, etc., it's quite reasonable to ask why you think the GOP has done these things if it were not attempting to suppress the black vote.

Care to take a shot at answering it, or are you going to keep tap dancing?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The Republican party has a well documented history of suppressing the black vote.

No, it doesn't. You have a history of asserting things that are actually opinion as if they were fact.

why you think the GOP has done these things if it were not attempting to suppress the black vote.

Who are the Democrats trying to suppress when they do it? Oh yeah, you don't acknowledge those facts. You only assume it's true when the Repubs are accused of it.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Paft: The Republican party has a well documented history of suppressing the black vote. "
g: No, it doesn't.

Then what was that consent decree the Republicans signed about back in the '80s? And why did the State of Florida settle out of court in that lawsuit brought by all those Floridians who were barred from voting in 2000?

g: Who are the Democrats trying to suppress when they do it?

You've got some recent examples to offer of thousands of legal Republican voters being denied the right to vote by Democrats through voter caging, intimidation, etc?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Then what was that consent decree the Republicans signed about back in the '80s?

It appears to be about having a court check whether an anti-fraud program violates the law or not, since it's a disputed issue.

And why did the State of Florida settle out of court in that lawsuit brought by all those Floridians who were barred from voting in 2000?

Which lawsuit are you referring to?

You've got some recent examples to offer of thousands of legal Republican voters being denied the right to vote by Democrats through voter caging, intimidation, etc?

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/21/the-new-black-panther-party-evidence-on-voter-intimidation/
http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/index.htm
http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?79820-Voter-intimidation-Sons-of-Democrat-candidates-are-suspects
http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/tag/voter-intimidation/
http://www.blackinformant.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/voterfraud.pdf

[paft.livejournal.com]

paft: Then what was that consent decree the Republicans signed about back in the '80s?
g: It appears to be about having a court check whether an anti-fraud program violates the law or not, since it's a disputed issue.

Uh, no, the court determined that the Republicans had been engaging in deliberate suppression of the minority vote, which is why they ended up having to sign a 1982 Consent Decree promising not to do it again. This promise was routinely broken very soon afterwards, resulting in some successful slander cases in 1986 from Texas voters who'd been unfairly accused of being convicted felons, and a Louisiana lawsuit the same year in which a judge observed, "the only reasonable conclusion is that they [the Republican Party] initiated this purge with the specific intent of disenfranchising these blacks of their right to vote."

Paft: And why did the State of Florida settle out of court in that lawsuit brought by all those Floridians who were barred from voting in 2000?
g: Which lawsuit are you referring to?

State of Florida VS NAACP, settled out of court in 2002.

Can you cite me the court cases resulting from the links you've posted, and the conclusions?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

the court determined that the Republicans had been engaging in deliberate suppression of the minority vote, which is why they ended up having to sign a 1982 Consent Decree promising not to do it again.

From what I've read, that does not appear to be true.

A joint statement by the plaintiffs, which included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the state and local elections officials named as defendants called the resolution "a fair and equitable settlement of all the outstanding issues."
Advertisement

The settlement, which must be approved by U.S. District Judge Alan Gold, mostly expands on reforms already adopted by elections officials after the widespread confusion of the 2000 election.

Under the settlement, state officials will correct the database errors that kept some voters from casting ballots by mistakenly identifying them as felons, and they will fix delays and mistakes in voter-registration procedures. The state also must monitor procedures to spot and correct Election Day problems.

This doesn't appear to support your assertion.

Can you cite me the court cases...

Can you for yours?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Paft: the court determined that the Republicans had been engaging in deliberate suppression of the minority vote, which is why they ended up having to sign a 1982 Consent Decree promising not to do it again.
g: From what I've read, that does not appear to be true. "A joint statement by the plaintiffs, which included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the state and local elections officials named as defendants called the resolution "a fair and equitable settlement of all the outstanding issues. The settlement, which must be approved by U.S. District Judge Alan Gold, mostly expands on reforms already adopted by elections officials after the widespread confusion of the 2000 election....This doesn't appear to support your assertion.

???

How does this quote about the NAACP lawsuit show my assertion about the 1982 Consent Degree to be "untrue?"

g: Can you for yours?...

I've already cited two. The consent decree can be found referenced extensively in the following link:

http://obama.3cdn.net/bfd196d021540c0a60_i2m6bnkiz.pdf

As for the slander lawsuits, those were back in the '80s, so it's difficult, barring a visit to a local library to find direct cites for them.