Shooter in Sutherland Springs

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/sl...s/dps-67-c.pdf

Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic/family violence?

Don’t remember that at all, Turdfly. Please provide links.

But it wasn't hard to get those documents the first time around.





No, it's not un-American. For many years, dating from the colonial period, voters had to be property holders who publicly declared for a candidate in a public setting where neighbors -- who knew the voter by sight -- served as witness to both their vote and their identity.



It was your argument that focused on the discharge and not the nature of the crime, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are a classic example of " you can't fix stupid " ekim the inbred hillbilly.

But it wasn't hard to get those documents the first time around.

YOU'RE A SACK OF SHIT IBIDIOT!



No, it's not un-American. For many years, dating from the colonial period, voters had to be property holders who publicly declared for a candidate in a public setting where neighbors -- who knew the voter by sight -- served as witness to both their vote and their identity.


YOU'RE A SACK OF SHIT IBIDIOT!

It was your argument that focused on the discharge and not the nature of the crime, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

YOU'RE A SACK OF SHIT IBIDIOT!

You continue to stand defiantly in the face of decency. No wonder your mother has to wipe your dirty little bottom and tell you it's OK.

Now take the thumb out of your mouth, little boy, and grow the fuck up in America.

Maybe the biggest indicator of a BCD versus a Dishonorable Discharge is that they let you finish your enlistment for a BCD. They average the evaluations that you recieved during that time and if they are low enough, you get a BCD but you finish the enlistment. If you do something that gets you in really serious trouble so bad that they decide to end your time in the service then you get a dishonorable. He finished his enlistment according to statements. There is also a discharge under less than honorable conditions, a general, and an Honorable Discharge.

Maybe it’s the Gooberment that should get their shit together. They botched the data on this guy and Dillon Roof. If the correct data was entered about these two, neither would have been able to buy guns legally.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

Following protocol doesn't make this right. The fucking protocol was flawed and botched by the DoD.

A long time ago you stopped being an amusing moronic buffoon. Now you are just a plain stupid fuck.
. Originally Posted by gnadfly

please find a post of mine where I started giving a fuck about what you think...

You are a classic example of " you can't fix stupid " ekim the inbred hillbilly. Originally Posted by bamscram

You're Ekim the Inbred Chimp, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

No, it's not un-American. For many years, dating from the colonial period, voters had to be property holders who publicly declared for a candidate in a public setting where neighbors -- who knew the voter by sight -- served as witness to both their vote and their identity.



. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Oh yea, I forgot about how American the Jim Crow Laws were and that you had to be 3/5 white.


Very good point of how Trump is taking this country back to being great again.

Just remember, the elite always want to limit who can vote....I say ever citizen should have that opportunity without jumping through a single hoop. You should be able to with your name DOB and home address. Nothing more should be required. The state them should have the burden of proving you are not a citizen.



.






.

Oh yea, I forgot about how American the Jim Crow Laws were and that you had to be 3/5 white.


Very good point of how Trump is taking this country back to being great again.

Just remember, the elite always want to limit who can vote....I say ever citizen should have that opportunity without jumping through a single hoop. You should be able to with your name DOB and home address. Nothing more should be required. The state them should have the burden of proving you are not a citizen.
Originally Posted by WTF

Every citizen has a right to vote once -- and only once -- in an election. The only way to insure that citizens --
and only citizens -- only vote once is to require an ID to prevent individuals who are so inclined from voting more than once using the names of other registered voters. Pretending that the criminally inclined are going to follow the law without measures to enforce the law is dim-retard malarkey. Hell, California makes it easy for people to cheat! They post the names and addresses of voters on the wall at the polling places. Dim-retards can vote in their own precinct as themselves and then make the circuit of nearby polling places and then vote again using the name and address of some person they pull off the wall.

BTW, it was mostly Yankee abolitionists who insisted on the 3/5ths clause ... not Southern slave holders. Southern slave holders wanted five slaves to count as five whole persons for the census. Yankee abolitionists wouldn't allow it.

Your ballot is secret, but what is not so secret is your name, address and probably your home phone number. They are posted right on the wall at the polling place for everybody to see.

(ABC)

There are multiple bad articles that Google has found to be incorrect like the shooter being part of antifa.

There are multiple bad articles that Google has found to be incorrect like the shooter being part of antifa. Originally Posted by grean

Yeah, and Google was also challenging "true factoids" like the veracity of the fact that shooter was an avowed atheist ... even after the New York Times reported cited sources verifying he was an atheist.

Every citizen has a right to vote once -- and only once -- in an election. The only way to insure that citizens --
and only citizens -- only vote once is to require an ID to prevent individuals who are so inclined from voting more than once using the names of other registered voters. .
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hmmmmmmm, then if it is not for voter suppression , then why these other measures. You are naïve if you think the laws are anything other than Voter suppression Laws. Below are just a few examples...why would any state cut the times you could vote? Oh yea because the elderly like to vote early. In other words, VOTER SUPPRESSION.


https://www.brennancenter.org/new-vo...ctions-america
New Voting Restrictions in America
After the 2010 election, state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions.
Overall, 23 states have new restrictions in effect since then — 10 states have more restrictive voter ID laws in place (and six states have strict photo ID requirements), seven have laws making it harder for citizens to register, six cut back on early voting days and hours, and three made it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions.
In 2016, 14 states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. Those 14 states were: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In 2017, legislatures in Arkansas and in North Dakota passed voter ID bills, which governors in each state signed, and Missouri implemented a restrictive law that was passed by ballot initiative in 2016. Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, and New Hampshire have also enacted more restrictions this year, in addition to laws that were on the books for previous elections.
This page details the new restrictive voting requirements put in place over the last several years


Florida

Restriction(s) in place for 2012 presidential election: Cut early voting, curbed voter registration drives, and made it harder to restore voting rights to people with past criminal convictions.
Original effective date: 2011
Background: In 2011, Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a series of laws, signed by Gov. Rick Scott (R), making it harder to vote. First, lawmakers reduced the early voting period, which contributed to long lines in the 2012 election. The legislature responded in 2013 by restoring some of the early voting days, but there are still fewer early balloting opportunities today than before the 2011 cutbacks. Second, Florida passed new restrictions on voter registration drives. With the help of the Brennan Center, the most onerous aspects of this law were enjoined by a federal court in August 2012. Finally, Gov. Scott reversed a prior executive action that had made it easier to restore voting rights to people with past criminal convictions. In effect, the state now permanently disenfranchises most citizens with past felony convictions.

Wisconsin

New restriction(s) in place for 2016: Photo ID required to vote.
Click here to see the types of ID required under Wisconsin’s law.
Restriction(s) in place for 2012 presidential election: Restriction on individual voter registration.
Background: In 2011, state lawmakers passed a restriction on individual voter registration and a law requiring photo ID to vote.
In 2014, the legislature also reduced early voting hours on weekdays and eliminated them entirely on weekends. These cuts were in effect for the first time in 2014. They are currently on hold after a July 2016 trial court decision finding the restrictions were intentionally racially discriminatory. That decision also ruled voters could obtain a free photo ID by showing up at a state DMV office.
Read more on the ongoing litigation over the photo ID and early voting restrictions, which were passed by a Republican-controlled legislature in 2011 and 2014, and signed by a GOP governor.

Nebraska

New restriction(s) in place for 2016: Reduced early voting period.
Background: In 2013, state lawmakers reduced the early voting period from a minimum of 35 days to no more than 30 days. Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is technically nonpartisan, but generally is controlled by Republicans. The measure was signed by a GOP governor.

Hmmmmmmm, then if it is not for voter suppression , then why these other measures. You are naïve if you think the laws are anything other than Voter suppression Laws.

https://www.brennancenter.org/new-vo...ctions-america
New Voting Restrictions in America

After the 2010 election, state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions.
Overall, 23 states have new restrictions in effect since then — 10 states have more restrictive voter ID laws in place (and six states have strict photo ID requirements), seven have laws making it harder for citizens to register, six cut back on early voting days and hours, and three made it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions.
In 2016, 14 states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. Those 14 states were: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In 2017, legislatures in Arkansas and in North Dakota passed voter ID bills, which governors in each state signed, and Missouri implemented a restrictive law that was passed by ballot initiative in 2016. Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, and New Hampshire have also enacted more restrictions this year, in addition to laws that were on the books for previous elections.
This page details the new restrictive voting requirements put in place over the last several years Originally Posted by WTF

It's also "voter suppression" to allow illegals to vote and/or allow a fellow citizen to vote more than once. Such votes one-for-one invalidate -- suppress -- honest votes.