they're getting rid of the law that ensures minorities can vote

Scarecrow von Steuben

Scarecrow von Steuben

I'm very friendly.
the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."[3] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African Americans from exercising the franchise
Click to expand...


http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Conservative-justices-target-Voting-Rights-Act-4315066.php
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/roberts-are-citzens-in-the-south-more-racist-than-citizens-not-in-the-south.php
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-poised-rule-part-voting-rights-act/story?id=18608835
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/27/supreme-court-hears-voting-rights-case/


The official reason is that it's no longer necessary, and that nobody is discriminatory anymore. I might be able to believe that if they weren't claiming the law promotes "racial entitlement" and also, uh, trying to make it legal to prevent black people from voting.


Oh, andthey also hate the Violence Against Women Act. Gee, if I didn't know better, I'd think they didn't like women and black people.
 
the 14th amendment?
 
Congress, just because you have one black friend (Clarence Thomas) doesn't mean you can be racist.
 
I have no idea what any of this means..

But I'd love No Violence Against Women to be changed to No Violence Against People

I'd also love for people to stop entitling themselves based on their race.

It would be nice for equality

/2-things-that-will-never-happen
 
^ I partially understand it, but I never really understood politics too well anyway...

But I think this is a really bad thing, it really isn't pointless, I mean they have it there for a reason.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act said:
On February 28, 2013, in a 286 to 138 vote, the House passed the Senate's all-inclusive version of the bill. [...] The renewed act expanded federal protections to gays, lesbians and transgender individuals, Native Americans and immigrants.
Click to expand...
So, the Violence Against "Women" Act now includes everyone but straight men.
 
Of course, because every man loves violence always all the time and thats all we care about and do and think about all the time always because were the acceptable targets now because i don't know why
 
VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005. The Act's 2012 renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered illegal aliens to claim temporary visas. In April 2012, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and the House subsequently passed its own measure (omitting provisions of the Senate bill that would protect gay men, lesbians, American Indians living in reservations, and illegal aliens who were victims of domestic violence). Reconciliation of the two bills was stymied by procedural measures, leaving the reauthorization in question.
Click to expand...
 
and?

the violence against women act has included sections about things other than violence against women for a long time. the fact that someone bitched and moaned about adding a few more such sections is irrelevant
 
I'd also love for people to stop entitling themselves based on their race.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that ensuring minorities can vote is entitlement?

Bubble Man said:
Of course, because every man loves violence always all the time and thats all we care about and do and think about all the time always because were the acceptable targets now because i don't know why
Click to expand...

bahaw bahaw life is hard


Beat said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act said:
On February 28, 2013, in a 286 to 138 vote, the House passed the Senate's all-inclusive version of the bill. [...] The renewed act expanded federal protections to gays, lesbians and transgender individuals, Native Americans and immigrants.
Click to expand...
So, the Violence Against "Women" Act now includes everyone but straight men.
Click to expand...

because we all know that straight white men are the #1 victim of hate crimes, right? And this is coming from a straight white man.
 
Nice Cage said:
I'd also love for people to stop entitling themselves based on their race.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that ensuring minorities can vote is entitlement?

Bubble Man said:
Of course, because every man loves violence always all the time and thats all we care about and do and think about all the time always because were the acceptable targets now because i don't know why
Click to expand...

bahaw bahaw life is hard


Beat said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act said:
On February 28, 2013, in a 286 to 138 vote, the House passed the Senate's all-inclusive version of the bill. [...] The renewed act expanded federal protections to gays, lesbians and transgender individuals, Native Americans and immigrants.
Click to expand...
So, the Violence Against "Women" Act now includes everyone but straight men.
Click to expand...

because we all know that straight white men are the #1 victim of hate crimes, right? And this is coming from a straight white man.
Click to expand...
I think that Scalia guy from SCOTUS got in trouble for saying that. ONE WOULD THINK that by 2013, everyone would believe that all races were equal!
 
he called the fact that black people are allowed to vote a "racial entitlement", so yeah, he is a racist
 
On the subject of hate crimes, I think it's silly that a person can get in more trouble for killing a person of a differing gender, sexual orientation, or race/creed than if they killed someone inside one of their own said group(s).

And on the main subject, I think they are eliminating it more for the fact that it's no longer necessary as there are laws already put in place to protect the voting rights of minorities. I firmly believe that not one single person in office is trying to disenfranchise anyone. :-\
 
Doctor Walter Bishop said:
I firmly believe that not one single person in office is trying to disenfranchise anyone. :-\
Click to expand...

you believe that based on what, exactly?
 
Bulbasaur said:
he called the fact that black people are allowed to vote a "racial entitlement", so yeah, he is a racist
Click to expand...

well considering that there has been comments on black people and their chains on the news im not really surprised.
 
Pinkie Pie said:
TIED IN CHAINS! </from our vp>
Click to expand...

Considering Joe Biden is kind of like only there to make everyone else look smarter...

Bulbasaur said:
meaning that you are content to strip away other people's legal protections based on your hunch that nothing bad will happen, and despite the fact that there is no actual conceivable benefit to doing so
Click to expand...

Look, I don't support what they're doing. It's a stupid way of trying to clean out laws that they believe are no longer necessary. I'd rather they not, as those safeguards are in there for a reason. All I'm saying is that I'm firmly sure that not a single one of our politicians, left or right wing, is going to try to disenfranchise voters of any type.
 
but why do you believe that when it has happened regularly in the past? why is now special
 
Doctor Walter Bishop said:
Pinkie Pie said:
TIED IN CHAINS! </from our vp>
Click to expand...

Considering Joe Biden is kind of like only there to make everyone else look smarter...

Bulbasaur said:
meaning that you are content to strip away other people's legal protections based on your hunch that nothing bad will happen, and despite the fact that there is no actual conceivable benefit to doing so
Click to expand...

Look, I don't support what they're doing. It's a stupid way of trying to clean out laws that they believe are no longer necessary. I'd rather they not, as those safeguards are in there for a reason. All I'm saying is that I'm firmly sure that not a single one of our politicians, left or right wing, is going to try to disenfranchise voters of any type.
Click to expand...
Are you serious that's all they want to do every single politician would love to stop those who would vote against them from voting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back