pre-clearance should be a requirement for EVERY state to ensure that the rights of ANY voter are not infringed upon. It's no secret why certain states were originally tagged for pre-clearance but I would agree that it isn't fair to ask a few states to abide by this and not others. I think the portion of the voting rights act, section 5, should stay but it should apply to every state in the union. what happens if native americans in colorado start limiting the voting rights of other ethnicity's? Make it simple and make it applicable for every state in the union.
What I am being misleading about, I posted the link to the article, if you are too fucking stupid to click the link instead of posting bullshit,well thats your problem.Whats misleading is calling something a rag. Guess what they threw it back to congress when George Bush was the president and Congress extended it. so what the fuck exactly are you talking about. Things are not all that different in certain states, thats bullshit to even say it is. You conservative should continue to be on the wrong side of history on subjects of this matter.
I didn't say you were misleading. Huffington Post and opinion base news sites are misleading and they are rags. The National Review is also a rag. Fair? Pre-clearance should be an all or none requirement. Simple as that. No reason for one state to be allowed to gerrymander in any way they see fit while another state can't. One state should not have a voter ID law struck down and another state has no such oversite. Or simpler still, one state should not have to go to the federal govt to approval a change in polling places while another doesn't. Shame on the states that had such discrimination in the past. Let's review their state of affairs today.
I cant say I disagree, but its not for Scalia to decide. He is a racist its really that simple. Without recognition of the struggle and people dying trying to secure the right to vote at the hands of jim crow laws and the such is disingenuous at best and vile an racist at the least from someone on the highest court in the land, that was my point.
YET. They don't follow up on half of the ones found to be in violation as the law stands NOW so why add to the "no work" they won't do?
lol@ yet, thats complete nonsense and you know it, stop being paranoid. The check backgrounds for far less shit.
Screw that. As long as the guberment is buying more ammo than the public, I'll keep an eye peeled. Seriously though, they don't follow up on thousands of people - who should be buying guns- buying them. Surely you've seen this too.
90% of people support a background check. That's where it's gotta end. I thought background checks were law anyway, except for when you buy from a buddy or gun show. If only we were as loud about our privacy on the Internet and as loud about our own personal freedoms such as the right to do whatever the fuck I want to myself. Government, and corporate America can suck my nuts.
My old boss used to say, "It's not paranoia, if they're really after you". Of course he said it while laughing but nonetheless.
