OCU:
Re: “So you think it's OK to disenfranchise thousands of legal voters in the hope that it will prevent a few illegal votes, EH?”
I knew you were going to come back with that. You're a very predictable guy. That's why I said "I hope you find this prospect as disturbing as I do." But you went right ahead anyway and wrote what you're programmed to write.
Respond to what I wrote, OCU, not what you wish I'd written.
I don't think it's okay to disenfranchise anyone. But if an election is rigged, then they are already disenfranchised. Don't you understand that? By not investigating Detroit, Philadelphia and every other case of election fraud and doing whatever it takes to ensure it won't happen again (if it did), it is you who support disenfranchisement.
What's needed is to investigate reports of fraud AND fix them. You keep objecting that the fix would be worse than the problem - which isn't true - and so seemingly wish to do nothing. I don't even think you like investigating fraud reports. Am I right?
Re: “Are you actually aware of what's going on in states like Georgia, Kansas and North Dakota??”
This sounds like an attempt to change the topic. But please explain why the Supreme Court was wrong to "gut" the 1965 voting rights act. I'll admit to not knowing much about it.
Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months
| 
