HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Too much?
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:52 PM

Too much?

37 replies, 2970 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply Too much? (Original post)
dorkulon Feb 2013 OP
Capt. Obvious Feb 2013 #1
MichiganVote Feb 2013 #2
Kalidurga Feb 2013 #3
elleng Feb 2013 #4
dorkulon Feb 2013 #5
elleng Feb 2013 #7
robinlynne Feb 2013 #19
quinnox Feb 2013 #6
Skittles Feb 2013 #8
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #9
Baitball Blogger Feb 2013 #10
demwing Feb 2013 #11
BainsBane Feb 2013 #12
baldguy Feb 2013 #18
Quantess Feb 2013 #13
Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #14
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #15
Chorophyll Feb 2013 #16
Blue Palasky Feb 2013 #17
Poll_Blind Feb 2013 #20
Summer Hathaway Feb 2013 #22
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #21
Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #26
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #27
Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #28
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #32
Hassin Bin Sober Feb 2013 #34
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #23
Luminous Animal Feb 2013 #24
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #33
dorkulon Mar 2013 #35
Democracyinkind Feb 2013 #25
Cali_Democrat Feb 2013 #29
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #30
Cha Feb 2013 #31
Tom Ripley Mar 2013 #36
99Forever Mar 2013 #37

Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:52 PM

1. I'd say yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:54 PM

2. Its what he was hired for afterall by the biggest bullshitters in gov. office-the Bush family

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:55 PM

3. Yes

But, I can understand why someone would feel that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:00 PM

4. Its only one section of the Act that's being considered now.

'A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Courtís more conservative members. . .

the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures,. . '

In reauthorizing the provision for 25 years in 2006, Congress did nothing to change the criteria for inclusion under the provision, relying instead on a formula based on historic practices and voting data from elections held decades ago. Much of the argument concerned that coverage formula. . .

Section 5, originally set to expire five years after the law was enacted, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1966 as a rational response to the often flagrantly lawless conduct of some Southern officials then.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/conservative-justices-voice-skepticism-on-voting-law.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:02 PM

5. True, but Thomas has expressed his opinion the the Act is unconstitutional. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:05 PM

7. thomas thinks, incorrectly, that MANY laws are unconstitutional.

I'm not really concerned about his opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:43 PM

19. Is that like counting some of the votes in Florida? or like being sort of pregnant?

sarcasm, just in case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:04 PM

6. the truth hurts sometimes n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:09 PM

8. yes, too much

and I truly detest that bastard

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:09 PM

9. Yeah. I don't even like kicking this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:17 PM

10. I'll check in an hour to see if this gets alerted.

I would have to recuse myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:24 PM

11. That you knew to ask

shows you probably already knew the answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:56 PM

12. Way too much

It's racist. Thomas has a right to a legal and political opinion, as repulsive as we find it, without facing racist insults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:35 PM

18. Thomas doesn't have any legal opinions that aren't written for him by Scalia.

And if he absolutely needs to express his political opinion, he should resign from the bench & run for office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:09 PM

13. He deserves it.

He totally deserves it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:19 PM

14. The truth is at times, ugly.

 

But thruthful none the less.

I can see why some would get uneasy about this graphic, I think we would rather believe these type of people don't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:21 PM

15. Not for me...

But then, I've known people on the other side that would applaud the accuracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:27 PM

16. Well...it's pretty spot-on.

Unfortunately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:28 PM

17. no.

 

anyone saying yes should realize the roses are red.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:54 AM

20. Reminds me of how harsh and unflinching Mr. Fish can be.

So, no, I don't think it is "too much". You're ironically juxtaposing a black man indirectly supporting the goals of the Klu Klux Klan- and that's a pretty harsh reality.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:26 AM

22. Agreed.

The truth is sometimes presented in scathingly caustic terms - but it IS the truth, nonetheless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:03 AM

21. Not that I want to agree with him but the voting rights act may well be unconstitutional.

If someone can help me understand how it is constitutional, I would appreciate it.

Having said that, I believe that a voters rights act can be written that is constitutional. And that's what we should be working on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:58 AM

26. I think th burden should be on the party who believes the act is unconstitutional.

Curious to see why you think it's unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 05:40 PM

27. I dont necessarily agree with that reasoning but here's my best.

I can find nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to regulate voting in the states. The current law hangs on the argument that some states arent capable of regulating voting w/o violating civil rights. That seems like a weak argument. By what measure does the federal government make the decision which states and how long they need to be under federal control.

I am certainly not an expert on the Constitution so if someone can point me to somewhere in the Constitution where this is allowed I would appreciate it.

I think we should stop watching the train wreck of the SCOTUS and turn our attention to getting Congress to pass a new voter rights bill that applies to all states and is written with authority of the Constitution, like maybe under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:29 PM

28. The Fifteenth Ammendment couldn't be ANY clearer:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:37 PM

32. I stand corrected. Seems that does apply to this specific law.

Do you believe this can be interpreted to apply to all citizens not just on account of race, color, etc.? And the Voting Rights Act extended to all states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:23 PM

34. i don't see why not.

Edit to add: because I was on my phone earlier. If not the 15th then surely the 14th amendment can be used to set minimum standards for everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:27 AM

23. Not too much at all. Instead, dead fucking on.

That skunk is doing the work of his masters, all right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:07 AM

24. It appears that your are using the KKK as a shield in order to call Thomas "boy".

So yes, too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:42 PM

33. The clear intent of the OP was to show the KKK calling Thomas, "boy", not the poster. nt.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #33)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 05:21 PM

35. Thanks. I would hope that's clear.

I can think of many derogatory words to describe Thomas, but that's not one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:39 AM

25. I object to the boy part - and I think the boy part is why it was posted here.


Very interesting to see who recced this. Some surprises, some pretty much expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:31 PM

29. Ouch

That's brutal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:34 PM

30. Clarence Thomas is more a lapdog of Monsanto than the KKK. He's an ex-Monsanto attorney

 

and will not recuse himself from Monsanto cases brought before the Supreme Court. Sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:35 PM

31. Maybe.

Edited from "No".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:32 PM

36. Not enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkulon (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:38 PM

37. No.

Not in the least. Truthiness isn't always polite or politically correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread