bullets13 Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014739301 Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 Anytime any change is made to voting protocol in any state, the real reason is to always suppress the poor impoverished democrat voter... Everybody knows that! BTW...did you want me to attack the source? Englebert 1 Quote
chukslegacy Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 All i have to say is go ahead and let those democrat voters vote and again we will be stuck with another loser in the oval office! Please! Quote
bullets13 Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Posted February 26, 2014 Anytime any change is made to voting protocol in any state, the real reason is to always suppress the poor impoverished democrat voter...Everybody knows that!BTW...did you want me to attack the source? absolutely, as it totally negates the content. Quote
bullets13 Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Posted February 26, 2014 the point being, you guys post dozens of posts like this a week. the only difference is that they say what you guys want to hear. but that doesn't make them any more verifiable or legitimate than this one. Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 the point being, you guys post dozens of posts like this a week. the only difference is that they say what you guys want to hear. but that doesn't make them any more verifiable or legitimate than this one. Show me dozens of bogus posts I have made from bogus sources...and no matter what the source, they are very easy to validate or refute nowadays with a little effort. Quote
tvc184 Posted February 26, 2014 Report Posted February 26, 2014 When I first started voting, there was no early voting unless you signed a waiver saying that you would be out of town on election day. It was not "early" voting, it was "absentee" voting. Then you had to vote on election day. Now they send out mail ballots where you really don't know who sent it back, many days to vote, complaints about showing an ID, etc. I don't care who votes but some people are trying to make it easier and easier to skew the results and if you complain, you are trying to disenfranchise someone. The Democrats appear to want to make it where the less verification there is, the better. chukslegacy 1 Quote
bullets13 Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Posted February 26, 2014 Show me dozens of bogus posts I have made from bogus sources...and no matter what the source, they are very easy to validate or refute nowadays with a little effort. Sorry I lumped you in. Much of my evidence was lost in the crash anyway. I'm just saying, the political forum is full of threads from biased "news sites" and then everyone gets all in an uproar about them. When I didn't, you seemed taken aback. Quote
77 Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 kinda like the voter id law i guess ? I think at the recent NAACP march that was held attendees had to show ID guess they were trying to keep poor blacks from attending the march.Please give it a break! Folks have no problem making it to the SS office or welfare office when need be bet they are smart enough to make it to vote! Quote
77 Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/democrats-busted-in-major-voting-scheme/ Quote
rolltides Posted February 27, 2014 Report Posted February 27, 2014 I say vote all them congressmen and congresswomen they are corrupt and stand up to this government. Quote
mustang Posted March 4, 2014 Report Posted March 4, 2014 http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014739301 Really? The democratic underground? This site is so left that it makes even the most radical lefties look normal. Pure brainless wingnuts. Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted March 4, 2014 Report Posted March 4, 2014 Really? The democratic underground? This site is so left that it makes even the most radical lefties look normal. Pure brainless wingnuts. NO NO NO... you're making his point! :D :D Quote
bullets13 Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Posted March 5, 2014 NO NO NO... you're making his point! :D :D bwahahahahahaha. too late! thanks laflamablanco. now you have about 50 articles from righty articles on the site you need to go dispute due to THEIR questionable origins. Quote
LumRaiderFan Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 bwahahahahahaha. too late! thanks laflamablanco. now you have about 50 articles from righty articles on the site you need to go dispute due to THEIR questionable origins. :D I still maintain, however, that a post should be read and evaluated rather than discarded based simply on source...there would be some on here that would give the Heritage Foundation that treatment. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.