(03-25-2014 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

It's Title 9 of the United States Attorneys' Manual.

That's classic!

That's certifiably the dumbest thing I've seen anybody claim on here.

Oh, Lord! Thanks for that!

Get over yourself and please see my edit.

Which edit?

It still says "Law."

Hilarious!

**** you. That was from my original post up top. I'll clean it up so you don't **** your pants relishing in your gotcha moment.

Get help, Commietom, you are out of your foolish f^cking clown mind.

Holder (a fed) told other AG's (state) that they have his okay to disregard the law if they don't like it. That negates every bit of this "state prosecuted so federal can't" blah blah bullpussy because IF the feds wanted to prosecute, they could.

(03-25-2014 03:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

That's classic!

That's certifiably the dumbest thing I've seen anybody claim on here.

Oh, Lord! Thanks for that!

Get over yourself and please see my edit.

Which edit?

It still says "Law."

Hilarious!

**** you. That was from my original post up top. I'll clean it up so you don't **** your pants relishing in your gotcha moment.

It was pretty damn dumb man, astronomically stupid actually.

Still, back to the point. I'm glad she went to prison in the state but a Federal prosecution shouldn't be ruled out just because. If anything it's worse that the Feds didn't want to take the first swing at a prosecution. That's another Holder failure.

bull****. It's the manual the Justice department has used for years. It was comprehensively revised in 1997. You know. BEFORE HOLDER! It's rooted in the US code and case law. Yes, I was incorrect in that it's not the "law", but it's based on it. And I added the applicable sections of the US Code that apply here.

You're just pissed because it was a D and Holder, nothing else.

(03-25-2014 03:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Get over yourself and please see my edit.

Which edit?

It still says "Law."

Hilarious!

**** you. That was from my original post up top. I'll clean it up so you don't **** your pants relishing in your gotcha moment.

It was pretty damn dumb man, astronomically stupid actually.

Still, back to the point. I'm glad she went to prison in the state but a Federal prosecution shouldn't be ruled out just because. If anything it's worse that the Feds didn't want to take the first swing at a prosecution. That's another Holder failure.

bull****. It's the manual the Justice department has used for years. It was comprehensively revised in 1997. You know. BEFORE HOLDER! It's rooted in the US code and case law. Yes, I was incorrect in that it's not the "law", but it's based on it. And I added the applicable sections of the US Code that apply here.

You're just pissed because it was a D and Holder, nothing else.

Actually, I think it's the overwritten crime and support you give for this. J/S from a neutral standpoint here. -> *

(03-25-2014 03:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Get over yourself and please see my edit.

Which edit?

It still says "Law."

Hilarious!

**** you. That was from my original post up top. I'll clean it up so you don't **** your pants relishing in your gotcha moment.

It was pretty damn dumb man, astronomically stupid actually.

Still, back to the point. I'm glad she went to prison in the state but a Federal prosecution shouldn't be ruled out just because. If anything it's worse that the Feds didn't want to take the first swing at a prosecution. That's another Holder failure.

bull****. It's the manual the Justice department has used for years. It was comprehensively revised in 1997. You know. BEFORE HOLDER! It's rooted in the US code and case law. Yes, I was incorrect in that it's not the "law", but it's based on it. And I added the applicable sections of the US Code that apply here.

You're just pissed because it was a D and Holder, nothing else.

Whatever you say.



Laughing at your stupidity is still fun.

(03-25-2014 03:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Holder (a fed) told other AG's (state) that they have his okay to disregard the law if they don't like it. That negates every bit of this "state prosecuted so federal can't" blah blah bullpussy because IF the feds wanted to prosecute, they could.

Link?

(03-25-2014 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Which edit?

It still says "Law."

Hilarious!

**** you. That was from my original post up top. I'll clean it up so you don't **** your pants relishing in your gotcha moment.

It was pretty damn dumb man, astronomically stupid actually.

Still, back to the point. I'm glad she went to prison in the state but a Federal prosecution shouldn't be ruled out just because. If anything it's worse that the Feds didn't want to take the first swing at a prosecution. That's another Holder failure.

bull****. It's the manual the Justice department has used for years. It was comprehensively revised in 1997. You know. BEFORE HOLDER! It's rooted in the US code and case law. Yes, I was incorrect in that it's not the "law", but it's based on it. And I added the applicable sections of the US Code that apply here.

You're just pissed because it was a D and Holder, nothing else.

Whatever you say.



Laughing at your stupidity is still fun.

Yet you don't say one word about or to fools like Jerry or SOAF? I've found another man of integrity.

(03-25-2014 03:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  **** you. That was from my original post up top. I'll clean it up so you don't **** your pants relishing in your gotcha moment.

It was pretty damn dumb man, astronomically stupid actually.

Still, back to the point. I'm glad she went to prison in the state but a Federal prosecution shouldn't be ruled out just because. If anything it's worse that the Feds didn't want to take the first swing at a prosecution. That's another Holder failure.

bull****. It's the manual the Justice department has used for years. It was comprehensively revised in 1997. You know. BEFORE HOLDER! It's rooted in the US code and case law. Yes, I was incorrect in that it's not the "law", but it's based on it. And I added the applicable sections of the US Code that apply here.

You're just pissed because it was a D and Holder, nothing else.

Whatever you say.



Laughing at your stupidity is still fun.

Yet you don't say one word about or to fools like Jerry or SOAF? I've found another man of integrity.

I didn't read anything they posted.

I posted an opinion that you replied to, remember?

(03-25-2014 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Holder (a fed) told other AG's (state) that they have his okay to disregard the law if they don't like it. That negates every bit of this "state prosecuted so federal can't" blah blah bullpussy because IF the feds wanted to prosecute, they could.

Link?

There is a thread on this very forum about it, with links provided. I really don't feel like digging through to find it.

I voted in 9 precincts for our mayoral race.....it was fun....

no id required (I tried, they looked at me like I was crazy)....all I needed was a name on the ledger......cracked me the fk up.....hmmm, let's see....I know registered voters that won't vote.....kinda simple.....my name is ___________ (you're a moron that thinks this shite matters)

it's too easy to fk with the system.....

I love this country.....

(03-25-2014 03:58 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I voted in 9 precincts for our mayoral race.....it was fun....

no id required (I tried, they looked at me like I was crazy)....all I needed was a name on the ledger......cracked me the fk up.....hmmm, let's see....I know registered voters that won't vote.....kinda simple.....my name is ___________ (you're a moron that thinks this shite matters)

it's too easy to fk with the system.....

I love this country.....

So you're why Dupree is back in

(03-25-2014 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:14 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 03:07 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 02:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Wasn't this issue mainly with absentee ballots in this case?

But yes I agree, I'm fine with a photo ID. I just want it free and easy to get.

Getting an ID couldn't get any easier unless you waltzed inside the DMV and wrote down what your name might be, what you birthdate might be, and what your SSN might be...

For most, yes it's a no brainer. But it isn't for everyone. We documented many cases back during election season of folks who either couldn't get one or were hit with a financial burden to get one.

It's rare, but it should be non-existent.

RW, an ID is $10 bucks. Ten blooming dollars. Or is it fifteen? IDK, but it's cheap.

Dude, sometimes folks don't have the documents necessary to get those ID's. That's where they either can't get them or they have to incur other costs.

Tom, we need to have proof of health insurance but not having proof of citizenship when voting is OK with you? Do you have any idea how much ID and/or personal information is required to sign up for Obamacare? A LOT more than getting an ID card.

Check and Mate.

Apples and Oranges.

Check and Mate.

(03-25-2014 04:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apples and Oranges.

Check and Mate.

Always the clown.

(03-25-2014 12:01 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't care who it is. If we find wrong doing you prosecute. To me it's even better if you prosecute someone who voted for you because it shows you care about the integrity of the system. To me the system is the most important aspect of it. WE ALL should care about fair elections. Florida 2000 really bothered me and I understand and appreciate the argument from the other side. The impression of wrong doing can severly hamper the whole system. The process has to be seen as fair to both sides. If this lady voted 6 times you prosecute her.

Also, drum roll, this lady was a Hamilton County Board of Elections worker.

Also,
"Richardson was previously convicted of threatening to kill a witness in a criminal case against her brother; of stealing; of drunken driving; and of beating someone in a bar fight, according to past Enquirer stories"
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/pol...o/6712981/

(03-25-2014 04:56 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 04:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apples and Oranges.

Check and Mate.

Always the clown.

Always the stupid old fool with usually nothing more than a link to a wnd article.

(03-25-2014 05:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 04:56 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 04:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apples and Oranges.

Check and Mate.

Always the clown.

Always the stupid old fool with usually nothing more than a link to a wnd article.

Don't you have some children's birthday party to be the clown at?

(03-25-2014 04:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apples and Oranges.

Check and Mate.

How so? You have to be a citizen in order to vote and all citizens have to have insurance. If you can prove you have insurance then that means you proved you are a citizen and that means you have what is required to get an ID card.

Check.
Your move, Boris.

(03-25-2014 11:54 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...ed_to_vote

Quote:A federal judge last week upheld the right of states to require proof of citizenship before allowing someone to register to vote. Voters continue to overwhelmingly support such a requirement.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 78% of Likely U.S. Voters believe everyone should be required to prove his or her citizenship before being allowed to register to vote. That’s up from 71% a year ago. Just 19% oppose that requirement. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe laws that require proof of citizenship before allowing voter registration discriminate against such voters. But more than twice as many (61%) say such laws do not discriminate, up three points from 58% who felt that way in March of last year. Ten percent (10%) are undecided

Can't believe no one really commented on this poll. With numbers like the above, they would indicate that even Latinos favor proof of citizenship before being allowed to vote. So why do libs strongly oppose ID when ID is needed for just about everything else in life? Without ID you can't do the following:

Enroll in school
Enroll in Obamacare
get a credit card
open a bank account
buy a plane ticket
drive a car
buy booze or smokes
get a hotel room
buy a house
rent a house/apartment
get a loan
get a job
buy a phone
be allowed into an NAACP meeting
be allowed into the DNC convention
get stopped by the cops
collect Social Security
Collect Welfare
Collect food stamps
get into the White House

So all the people who can't get an ID card aren't doing any of the above things?