The GOP war on voting

[Gaspar]

Crowman, who cares the method. Why do you hate giving everyone their constitutional right to vote?

I have asked you time and again to provide the details of voter fraud you seem to be hell bent on stopping.

You can't....so, play fair.

Show me where in the constitution the right to vote is granted.

Hint: Don't show me where infringement is banned, just where the right is granted.  

I think it should be a constitutional right, but it is not.

[Conan71]

Crowman, who cares the method. Why do you hate giving everyone their constitutional right to vote?

I have asked you time and again to provide the details of voter fraud you seem to be hell bent on stopping.

You can't....so, play fair.

Protecting the sanctity of voting is not excluding anyone from exercising the privelege to vote unless they choose to make it so.

I've listed the types of voter fraud, via my posts and quotes from the likes of the Texas AG, and SCOTUS.  You don't appear to listen.

[Red Arrow]

When you answered "yes," you indicated that both conditions were true and that the or was therefore mistaken. At least by my reading. Last I checked, you weren't a computer, so I shouldn't need to interrogate you further to determine which statement was true or if both were true.

You are incorrect computer breath.  Yes indicates that either one or the other condition is correct, even in just plain English.  The condition of both being correct is, I believe relegated to computers.  So yes, you do need to interrogate further to ascertain the limits of my answer.

[Red Arrow]

In case no one has said it yet, Nathan and RA, ......"You guys are ridiculous!". And I mean that in the most respectful way.

You are no fun at all.   

[nathanm]

You are incorrect computer breath.  Yes indicates that either one or the other condition is correct, even in just plain English.  The condition of both being correct is, I believe relegated to computers.  So yes, you do need to interrogate further to ascertain the limits of my answer.

No, "this or that" evaluates true in the situation that either or both are true in the computer world. "this and that" is only true if both are true. "this nor that" is true only if both are false (aka, "not (this or that)" in most languages, which will compile with a nor or a negated or depending on what sort of CPU you're compiling for).

[Hoss]

No, "this or that" evaluates true in the situation that either or both are true in the computer world. "this and that" is only true if both are true. "this nor that" is true only if both are false (aka, "not (this or that)" in most languages, which will compile with a nor or a negated or depending on what sort of CPU you're compiling for).

*DERP*   

[Red Arrow]

No, "this or that" evaluates true in the situation that either or both are true in the computer world. "this and that" is only true if both are true.

I did not say that the condition of one or the other but not both being true did not give a true in the computer world.  

One can be true without the other being true.  Both can be true  You said it yourself.  Determining which of three possibilities (with two inputs) is the one that triggers the result of true takes further investigation.  

[nathanm]

Protecting the sanctity of voting is not excluding anyone from exercising the privelege to vote unless they choose to make it so.

And literacy tests are just protecting the sanctity of voting. Literacy tests don't exclude anyone from exercising the privilege unless they choose to be illiterate. Disability doesn't prevent anyone making it to the polls or force them to require an absentee ballot (which is the most likely avenue of fraud) unless they choose not to get a wheelchair. (a really smart one, for those quadriplegics out there)

[Teatownclown]

Protecting the sanctity of voting is not excluding anyone from exercising the privelege to vote unless they choose to make it so.

I've listed the types of voter fraud, via my posts and quotes from the likes of the Texas AG, and SCOTUS.  You don't appear to listen.

"Types of voter fraud" is a technique term designed to twist the fact that this is probably .0001% of total votes.
No. I read your posts but I also realize there are no numbers to justify this indirect attempt at what's basically 'changing the rules of the game.' I believe the VRA was enacted without anticipating these new techniques explicitly intended to prevent people from having an impact on political outcomes.

[Red Arrow]

twist the fact that this is probably .0001% of total votes.

So you don't have a number either.

[Teatownclown]

So you don't have a number either.

Sh!T I was WRONG!... it's .0003% ( three times what I thought ). http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/case_studies_by_state/

"None of these problems could have been resolved by requiring photo ID at the polls."

It's so obvious what's going on here. America's bigots want to win this election so bad, they're willing to change the rules we've been playing under  for the sole purpose of riggin' the election.

The cover story of Business Week this week is on King Karl and his billion dollar reach to get total control of our government by the (new) Republicans. Think about that. Crownan, is that why you left the party?

[Red Arrow]

It's so obvious what's going on here. America's bigots liberals want to win this election so bad, they're willing to change the rules we've been playing under get anyone with a pulse, regardless of citizenship, to the polls for the sole purpose of riggin' the election.

[nathanm]

Evidence would be nice, RA.

[Hoss]

Evidence would be nice, RA.

You're kidding, right?  Don't you know that lib'ruls are the DEBBIL?!

[Teatownclown]

  RED ARROW: " they're willing to change the rules we've been playing under get anyone with a pulse, regardless of citizenship, to the polls for the sole purpose of riggin' the election. "

Listen. That is not happening! NO PROOF. IT'S A LIE.

Don't be part of the liars club, Arrow.