Attorney General Holder refers to slavery because TX wants voters to have an ID to vote. What is wrong with that, don't most have an ID already, or are they scared illegal voters won't get to vote?

Holder compares Texas voter ID law to post slavery poll taxes | Fox News

 

 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Limbaugh/Obama-Holder-racism-race-card/2011/12/20/id/421582

 

 

Some more examples of race card by the Adm. and what would be said if a White President or Attorney General said the same as the following.

 

President Obama led us to believe that he would be a post-racial president who would bring the races together, but it's gotten to where you can't criticize this most leftist administration in American history without someone accusing you of racism.

 

In a New York Times interview, Holder suggested race was partially driving a "more extreme segment" against him and Obama.

 

Holder said, "This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship, and, you know, the fact that we're both African-American." When pressed for some proof to support Holder's allegation, the Justice Department did not respond.

 

Nor has the White House distanced itself from Holder's comments.

 

It could also help to explain his Justice Department's indefensible dismissal of an already won voter intimidation case against New Black Panther Party members using the specious excuse that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

 

When a white police officer in Cambridge, Mass., arrested Harvard professor Henry Gates, an African-American, Obama, without having heard both sides of the case, publicly injected himself into the local matter and gratuitously smeared the entire police department as having "acted stupidly."

 

 

Not only has Obama made these viscerally charged racial statements, he has also consciously appealed to minority groups with specific reference to their race. In a Democratic National Committee video in April 2010, he urged "young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women . . .* to stand together once again."

 

Shortly before the November 2010 congressional elections, he told an audience that Republicans "are counting on black folks staying home." Separately, he appealed to Latino voters not to stay home at election time but to "punish our enemies" and not go along with the Republicans' "cynical attempt to discourage Latinos from voting."

 

 

 

Plus Eric Holder spoke to only Black Caucus Churches and took the IRS with him to make sure they wouldn't break voter rules and keep Tax exempt status when dealing with voter registration.

http://politic365.com/2012/05/25/black-clergy-and-lawmakers-unite-to-protect-voter-rights/

 

I really was fooled by Obama, I didn't vote for him, but I actually thought him being elected would bring racism closer to being over and America would get closer and do good. Now it seems opposite and I am disappointed in how often race is brought up by the Obama Adm. Me not liking Obama has everything to the way he has ran America, not his color, not his wife, but the economy and how he tries to run ruff shot over everyone.

Edited July 11, 201214 yr by PurplePride92
Put link in better spot to make the post more clear

If I thought it would make a difference I'd entertain this thread but it won't so I'll just leave it be.

If I thought it would make a difference I'd entertain this thread but it won't so I'll just leave it be.

 

No response most likely due to the fact there is no defense for Obama and his minions.

No response most likely due to the fact there is no defense for Obama and his minions.

 

Nope. The close mindedness of your reply is. Seeing the two likes that you have for your post further increases the need to rest my case.

 

Meaning....what's the point? Your mind(s) are made up before I even attempt to explain the thought process of black people and why for some, many, few the race card is played.

I really can't believe that some do not see the way race shows up in certain things because of HISTORY.

 

In the Jim Crow context, the presidential election of 1912 was steeply slanted against the interests of black Americans. Most blacks still lived in the South, where they had been effectively disenfranchised, so they could not vote at all. While poll taxes and literacy requirements banned many poor or illiterate Americans from voting, these stipulations frequently had loopholes that exempted white Americans from meeting the requirements. In Oklahoma, for instance, anyone qualified to vote before 1866, or related to someone qualified to vote before 1866 (a kind of "grandfather clause"), was exempted from the literacy requirement; the only persons who could vote before that year were white male Americans. White Americans were effectively excluded from the literacy testing, whereas black Americans were effectively singled out by the law.

 

Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

After the ability to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment, many Southern states enacted poll tax laws as a means of restricting eligible voters; such laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax. These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[1] achieved the desired effect of disfranchising African-American and Native American voters, as well as poor whites.

 

Poll tax (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

I think identification is important and voter fraud is an issue in some places (I even saw voter fraud at a Southern Baptist Convention meeting once so it's not just your traditional voting booths where it may take place). However the timing and presentation is what makes it a PR nightmare.

 

For those who can't see how some parts of our culture may feel about this issue, all I can say is it's amazing to me that people can't see how "well intentioned" ideas (if they truly are "well intentioned") smack of a dark time not too long ago in the scheme of history.

 

I don't believe presenting an ID is as large an issue if the law was being enacted in an odd based year. In other words a year where Congress and/or Presidential elections were being held nationally.

I thought this was funny:

 

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID - Katie Pavlich

I thought this was funny:

 

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID - Katie Pavlich

 

 

As I mentioned in the actual thread about this issue....proper government identification is required as a security measure when people such as the Attorney General speak in public. Security measures.

I thought this was funny:

 

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID - Katie Pavlich

 

 

I understand Purple's response and am all for security but the timing is ironic if not moronic. Just my take.

As I mentioned in the actual thread about this issue....proper government identification is required as a security measure when people such as the Attorney General speak in public. Security measures.

 

So in your opinion, one man's life is more important that the making sure our next President if validly elected? I can assure you that my life is not that important.

So in your opinion, one man's life is more important that the making sure our next President if validly elected? I can assure you that my life is not that important.

 

Only if the man is a Democratic union supporter :ylsuper:

Only if the man is a Democratic union supporter :ylsuper:

 

Not true in my opinion. No person's life is more important than making sure the next President is validly elected.

So in your opinion, one man's life is more important that the making sure our next President if validly elected? I can assure you that my life is not that important.

 

Seeing Eric Holder speak is not a fundamental right.

So in your opinion, one man's life is more important that the making sure our next President if validly elected? I can assure you that my life is not that important.

 

I don't make the rules. I just follow them. Last I was told proper government identification is required at events involving federal officials. If that isn't true by all means show me and then we can continue the debate.

Only if the man is a Democratic union supporter :ylsuper:

 

 

Once again, close mindedness pops up again.

 

 

Show me the post where I said I agreed with Holder and that he is correct in his speech.

 

I'll wait.

Not true in my opinion. No person's life is more important than making sure the next President is validly elected.

 

All Tell was being sarcastic.

 

 

From MSNBC so I am sure it will be dismissed but this last paragraph caught my attention.

 

 

Voter ID laws could disenfranchise 758,000 in Pennsylvania - The Ed Show

 

In the past decade, 649 million votes were cast in general elections.* There were also 47,000 UFO sightings. 441 Americans were killed by lightning.* And just 13 (yes,13) credible cases of in-person voter impersonation.