GOP has tough choices on Voting Rights Act

Supreme Court says Congress can rewrite Voting Rights Act, but GOP path isn't clear
Associated Press
Jul 5, 2013

 

When the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights act last week, it handed Republicans tough questions with no easy answers over how, and where, to attract voters even GOP leaders say the party needs to stay nationally competitive.

The decision caught Republicans between newfound state autonomy that conservatives covet and the law's popularity among minority, young and poor voters who tend to align with Democrats. It's those voters that Republicans are eyeing to expand and invigorate the GOP's core of older, white Americans.

National GOP Chairman Reince Priebus began that effort well before the court's decision by promising, among other initiatives, to hire non-white party activists to engage directly with black and Latino voters. Yet state and national Republicans reacted to the Voting Rights Act decision with a flurry of activity and comments that may not fit neatly into the national party's vision.

Congressional leaders must decide whether to try to rewrite the provision the court struck, but it's not clear how such an effort would fare in the Democratic-led Senate and the GOP-controlled House. And at the state level, elected Republicans are enacting tighter voting restrictions that Democrats blast as harmful to their traditional base of supporters and groups the Republicans say they want to attract.

States like North Carolina and Virginia provide apt examples of the potential fallout. An influx of non-whites have turned those Republican strongholds into battlegrounds in the last two presidential elections, and minority voters helped President Barack Obama win both states in 2008 and Virginia again in 2012. Nationally, Republican Mitt Romney lost among African-Americans by about 85 percentage points and Latinos by about 44 percentage points, margins that virtually ensure a Democratic victory.

Yet presidential math doesn't necessarily motivate Republicans who control statehouses and congressional districts in states most affected by the Voting Rights Act. Core GOP supporters in the region react favorably to voter identification laws and broad-based critiques of federal authority.

Against that backdrop, Southern Republicans celebrated Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion that effectively frees all or parts of 15 states with a history of racial discrimination from having to get advanced federal approval for any election procedure.

The so-called "preclearance" provision anchored the law that Congress renewed four times since its 1965 passage as the crowning achievement of the civil rights movement for black Americans. The law contains an "opt-out" provision that allowed a jurisdiction to ask a federal court for release from preclearance if it has established a record of non-discrimination. Roberts said that process — never used successfully by an entire state — wasn't enough.

"The court recognized that states can fairly design our own (district) maps and run our own elections without the federal government," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said in a statement.

Citizens can still sue to overturn state laws, but they'll likely have to prove discrimination after the fact, rather than local authorities having to convince federal officials in advance that a law wouldn't discriminate.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican running for governor, said: "I do not believe we have the institutional bigotry like we had before."

GOP officials in Texas and Mississippi promised within hours of the decision to enforce new laws requiring voters to show identification at polls. The U.S. Justice Department's civil rights lawyers had frozen the Mississippi law while they considered effects on minority voters, while a panel of federal judges in Washington blocked the Texas law because of its potential to harm low-income and minority voters. North Carolina Republicans said they'd enact their own voter identification law. Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed new congressional district maps — tilted to Republican advantage — that federal authorities would have had to review.

But in Washington, Republicans like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia embraced the nuances of Roberts' ruling. The court didn't actually strike down preclearance, instead tossing rules that determined which jurisdictions got oversight. Congress is free to rewrite those parameters and revive advance review, Roberts wrote.

"I'm hopeful Congress will put politics aside," Cantor said, "and find a responsible path forward that ensures that the sacred obligation of voting in this country remains protected."

The white Republican recalled his recent trip to Alabama with black Democratic Rep. John Lewis on the 50th anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights march. Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat, was beaten repeatedly as a young civil rights advocate during the 1960s. The commemoration, Cantor said, was "a profound experience."

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who helped lead the law's latest reauthorization when the GOP ran Congress in 2006, said the court "disappointed" him. Lingering discrimination, he said, compels Congress to update the act, "especially for minorities."

"There's no easy answer" for the GOP, said Henry Barbour, a high-profile member of the Republican National Committee. The Mississippi native conceded his personal views demonstrate the complications.

Barbour helped write the national party's post-election analysis calling for better outreach to minorities and urged fellow Republicans that "our tone is important, on this and any other issue." But he's clear in his support for the decision and what it means in Mississippi.

Blatantly racist laws like poll taxes and literacy tests once made preclearance necessary, Barbour said. "But when you have to go hat-in-hand to Washington every time you want to move a polling place," then it's evolved into "federal harassment that's gone on way too long," he added.

Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia said Congress is capable of writing a new national formula based on the latest voter registration and turnout data "if everyone will sit back and take a deep breath."

Barbour disputed that forecast, but not because of opposition from Southerners. Rather, he said, "People in these other states don't want this scrutiny coming to them."

That frustration reflects part of the 2006 renewal debate in Congress. Despite fewer than three dozen dissenting votes, some Southern members said the extra scrutiny should apply nationwide or not at all.

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who supported ending preclearance, said Republicans should emphasize parts of the act still in use. Besides a general discrimination ban, the feds can invoke preclearance for jurisdictions with new patterns of mistreating minorities. That "opt-in" rule has affected Arkansas, New Mexico and some cities and counties.

Others in the GOP say election results form a defense. Katon Dawson, a former South Carolina party chairman, noted that Gov. Nikki Haley, of Indian descent, appointed then-Rep. Tim Scott as the modern South's first black U.S. senator. He'll seek a full term next year.

"We're walking the walk," Dawson said.

Of course, Southern states also produced the widest margins among white voters in favor of Mitt Romney and John McCain in their losses to Obama.

Chris LaCivita, a Republican consultant in Virginia, offered one more potential comfort for Republicans: The relationship between Democrats and whites. Republicans need more minority votes in presidential years, but Democrats need more white Southerners if they want to regain control of Congress or many statehouses.

"Democrats might want to think long and hard about making a racially based argument," LaCivita said, "considering voters they need don't like having to pay for the sins of their fathers."

 

Comments

Contango

A joke told to me by a late liberal friend:

Democrats are like a person who while walking along a beach sees a man drowning 50 ft. offshore.

He throws the man a 100 ft. rope, drops the rope and then continues his walk along the beach looking for others to help.

A Republican also walking along a beach, witnesses a man similarly drowning 50 ft. offshore, but instead, he tosses the man a 25 ft. rope. And while holding the rope yells for him to swim towards it.

JudgeMeNot

Good one.

The Big Dog's back

Off topic again.

JudgeMeNot

@ lil dog

OBAMA KOOL AID

Relax -- Drink Up -- No Worries

Contango

Re: "Off topic again."

Perusual, you missed the point DERPY.

Repubs need to be more like Dems to win voters don't they?

The Repubs just need a 150 ft. rope to drop. :)

The Big Dog's back

I don't think stripping someone of their voting rights is funny in any way. And to make an off topic joke about it is despicable.

Contango

Re: "stripping someone of their voting rights,"

Yea, voter ID is SO oppressive DERPY. :)

grumpy

The court decision strips the voting rights of people, how? All it does is give s 15 states the same rights as the other 35 states have.

The Big Dog's back

If I wanted to hear faux news talking points I would watch it. Use your own head.

grumpy

I have come to not be surprised that you can't answer how voting rights were stripped, since the answer is they weren't. The only thing this court decision did was not require 15 states to ask permission to do what the other 35 states do without asking permission.

coasterfan

Contango: I think your friends joke is somewhat accurate and very telling. It is true that Republicans truly only care about themselves, but they aren't usually willing to meet anyone even halfway. So, the joke would have been more accurate if the Republican threw only a 10-foot rope and then complained that he had to give 10' of his rope that he had earned/paid for...

2cents's picture
2cents

No Coaster, the 25 feet of line or rope, sorry grew up maritime, is to help the person out of a bind just like food stamps and welfare are today. Unfortunately, to bring this saying up to 2013 terms one would need to change the line or rope to a democrat’s hose. You see in today’s society there is no longer a lifeline, there is a desire and it is being fulfilled to be a hose, a never ending support system that is not a method to motivate but a style of living. Once the hose is flowing it is almost impossible to stop the flow!

Contango

Re: "I think your friends joke is somewhat accurate and very telling."

Yea, it's spot on how the Dems block the elimination of waste, fraud and outright abuse in hundreds of publicly financed programs (dropping the rope).

Maybe spend some time reading GAO reports?

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11...

coasterfan

The headline to this article hit the nail on the head: the GOP's path isn't clear. The article mentions that they hope to "expand their core of older, White Americans". It's hard to see how that might happen, since their party leadership continues to anger and alienate most everyone else. Democrats have won the popular vote for 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, and Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to reverse that trend. As their core of angry, old white men dies off, their core will continue to shrink. They still think that the reason they lost in 2008 and 2012 was due to the messenger they chose, rather than the message.

The party leadership is finally beginning to realize that they need to change their approach, even if they have no idea what to actually do. The local conservative citizenry apparently aren't even there yet, and it's fascinating to read their posts. Some have no clue that theirs is the minority viewpoint. They rant on, in smug assurance that they are the "intelligent majority", apparently not noticing that it is no longer 1950, 1970 or 1990.

Things have changed, but they didn't notice. As long as they continue to ignore the fact that their viewpoint is - in 2013 - supported by a shrinking minority of Americans, they'll continue to lose. Works for me. :) Denial is a powerful thing, they say...

Pterocarya frax...

In 2006, between the House and Senate, Republicans voted 244 to 33 in favor of renewing the Voting Rights Act. If you would think those 244 would be outraged at the "Activist Judges" who said their votes didn't matter, I guess you would be wrong.

bucknut36

The GOP (Gray Old Party) is a dying dinosaur. Until they change their views on gay rights, women's rights, worker's rights, etc. they will not win the White House again. The Republican Party has become an exclusive all white Southern party. Hopefully the younger generation of GOPer's won't be as bigoted and closed mind as the current group!!

The Big Dog's back

Exactly. The problem is if you ask them if they are bigoted and close minded, they say no. They have to recognize the problem 1st.

There you go again

I found your comment to be"bigoted and closed minded."

The Big Dog's back

Repubs would be fine with Jim Crow laws.

deertracker

You are correct BD. They really believe this is THEIR country and only THEIRS!

buttermaker

It was actually Democrats who introduced Jim Crow Laws. It was a Democratic Governor (Wallace) who infamously declared "segregation then, segregation now, segregation forever". It was a Democrat (Gore,Sr)who led a group to vote against the Civil Rights Act. It was a Democrat (Byrd) who was a leader in the KKK. If you want to give a history lesson, get your facts straight at least.

The Big Dog's back

Tell me which Dem is advocating that now. The Dems booted those people out of the party. And where did they end up? With you and the Repub party.

JudgeMeNot

What EXACTLY are you talking about?

The Big Dog's back

You're talking 50 years ago. Once again, same question.

grumpy

Some seem to wish that the Southern states were again dominated by the democrat party, back in the "good old days " when Jim Crow laws were passed the democrats were in control, and were the ones who wrote and passed the laws in the first place, now they say that the GOP won't, can't, and hasn't changed, but the dems have. The dems seem to want everything to be looked at like it was the 60's still. The dems don't seem to want things to change from that time period. They seem to be stuck on stupid.

The Big Dog's back

What from the 60's do you want changed? Civil rights Act? (The reason the southerners left the Dem party) Medicare? Segregation? 24th Amendment? Voting Act? Which ones do you want to change?

Contango

Re: "bigoted and close minded,"

Only one, single, solitary thought is necessary in a liberal-Progressive mind:

LET GOVERNMENT DO IT.

grumpy

Close but not quite correct. The liberal/Progressive mind says

let the FEDERAL gov't do it, the farther, more isolated from the people the better. Treat people from Mass. the same as those in Idaho. They have so much in common, and don't even think of letting anything closer to the people like local government deal with anything, those politicians might be persuaded by the people instead of controlled by the elite in DC.

Contango

Re: "Treat people from Mass. the same as those in Idaho."

Good point.

Anti-Federalism - gut the 10th Amendment.

The United STATE of America.

And why is it that 4 of the 10 richest U.S. counties surround DC?

http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/11...

deertracker

I get so tired of all the government bashing. Name a government that is perfect. Fact is, a country of over 300 million people need to be governed. Sometimes, there are things that only the federal government can do. Private corporations are only interested in profit. If the cons think everything is just fine why the need to change any laws?

Contango

Re: "there are things that only the federal government can do."

True.

See the list of enumerated powers within the U.S. Constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enu...

Unfortunately it's got it tentacles into too many other areas.

deertracker

Was it "unfortunate" the government had it's "tentacles" in the Wall St. debacle?

Huron_1969

Sure was... the relationship between commercial banks and Freddie Mac is a good example

grumpy

I haven't seen any post here who want no gov't, I have seen those who want to follow the 10th Amendment and have states and local governmets take care of what should be done locally instead of by elites in DC. Controlled by those who actually can see what is needed in the local area instead of someone who reads a 3rd or 4th hand report, after it has been condensed a few times.

deertracker

Problem with those like you is you want to pick and choose what part of the constitution you want to adhere to.

grumpy

Says a person who who wants to pick not following the 10th Amendment.

Care to point out the parts of the Constitution I don't wish to follow? Or do you just make statements about other people you can't back up, in other words, at best gossip, or at worst lie?

deertracker

You are a complete WASTE OF MY TIME! There was no need to change the VOTER'S RIGHTS ACT!

The Big Dog's back

I think grumpy is pooh's alter ego.

JudgeMeNot

Same old liberal whining about nothing!!!

grumpy

There was no reason to continue to put a burden on the 15 states that had to go to the federal gov't to make changes in the voting laws of the state. 35 states don't have those restrictions. Things have changed from 50 years ago, some people just wish that they were stuck in the 60's, in other words stuck on stupid. When the problem is fixed, as SCOTUS found in this court case, they took away the no longer needed restrictions. It changed nothing but the need for the 15 states to get permission from the federal gov't to do what the other 35 states can do on their own. Please continue to jump up and down while whining and crying about SCOTUS making the states equal. again.

The Big Dog's back

Yep. All those law changes were stupid weren't they. Civil rights act, Medicare, Jim Crow abolishment, voting rights act. Stupid, just plain stupid weren't they.

Contango

Re: "Stupid, just plain stupid, "

Yes you are. :)

grumpy

Last I checked this decision from SCOTUS was about the 15 states affected by the ruling no longer having to go to the feds for permission to do what the other 35 states can do without asking for permission. The rest would be off topic and deflecting. The rest of those things are the current law. Do you have a problem with them?

The Big Dog's back

Ahhhhh, you're the one who brought up 50 years ago. 60's? Remember you posting that?

grumpy

In context of problems that have been solved, as per the SCOTUS decision, you are correct. The others can be brought to the Supreme Court if you wish, but I don't see anyone lining up to do so. You can be first. We'll see how many follow your lead.

The Big Dog's back

Maybe you should check again. Reference from an independent source your assertion that is about 15 states, not just what roberts said.

grumpy

State what you mean. I have no desire nor need to do your research. I have not said that the Act wasn't needed... 48 years or so ago. But after the problem is solved the punishment and restrictions should end... as demonstrated by the Supreme Court decision. If you wish to dispute that make your reasons known. If not I see no reason for the Act to continue, and SCOTUS agrees with that.

The Big Dog's back

SCOTUS and stripping voting rights OK. SCOTUS and ruling for abortion not OK. SCOTUS and ruling Corporations are people,OK. SCOTUS and ruling for gays not OK. Gotcha grumps.

grumpy

SCOTUS decided that voting rights are safe in those 15 States as the problems fron 50 years ago have been solved, and are no longer being done. As such no need to treat them different than the other 35 states. They also defined corporations as people as far as being able to donate money to politicians, same as unions are able to do. SCOTUS also made the ruling for the gay folks. All are fine by me. Sorry if you have problems with them, your opinion on said cases really doesn't matter, they are now the law of the land. Feel free to dispute them all you wish.

bucknut36

@deertracker Good point. It is a shame that some people "posting" here do not have the tools to comprehend this!

Contango

deertracker writes:

"There was no need to change the VOTER'S RIGHTS ACT!"

"Problem with those like you is you want to pick and choose what part of the constitution you want to adhere to."

EXACTLY - look long and hard in the mirror. :)

eriemom

"The court recognized that states can fairly design our own (district) maps and run our own elections without the federal government," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said in a statement.

Ohio did not design our own (district)fairly. Just look at our district lines.This what we can expect. To be fair all states should be treated equally.

grumpy

Elections have consequences. If dems had won they would have made the districts to advantage themselves. It is called politics. would you be whining if that had happened? Didn't think so.
When you were a child your mother told you to put yourself in the other persons shoes to see if it was fair.
Politicians don't do such things, no matter the party. Both gerrymander the districts when they are in the majority.

eriemom

Advocating for justice is not whining.

grumpy

When you take one side that will do the same thing to take advantage of the process does not represent justice.

Contango

Re: "Ohio did not design our own (district)fairly."

The party in power ALWAYS tends to draw the districts to their political advantage. Goes for both.

It'll come around again with the next census in 2020.

eriemom

My point is that no state or party should be able to do this. It should not be politics as usual. It is about representation.

grumpy

The further control is from the people the less chance for representation of ALL the LOCAL people. Like when the control is from the elitist feds in DC compared to the control of those in the community.

The Big Dog's back

Sounds like the Repubs on here want to raise our state and local taxes immensely in order to implement the things the Fed does now. Thanks righties.

grumpy

If the State does more of the governing they would need more tax money, and the feds would need less. Math tends to work that way. But then you should realize such basics without them being pointed out to you.

The Big Dog's back

Anyone with common sense would know it would cost more to do things on a local or state basis. Keywords, common sense.

grumpy

Why would it cost more when local or state govern? Fewer people involved, lower cost for administration, since everything in DC costs more, including administration costs. There is a reason that 4 of the wealthiest counties in the USA surround DC. Hint, it is not because everything there is cheaper. But then common sense seems to not be very common in this thread.

The Big Dog's back

What's the reason? Who lives in those counties? Hedge fund managers? Who?

grumpy

I would say the majority are politicians and bureaucrats since the federal gov't is the main employer of the counties around DC. Most hedge funds on the East coast of the US are based in New York, not DC. If you want more information on it I suggest you look up the census from 2010, and limit it to the counties surrounding DC They have that kind of info for those who wish to look. Also Forbes magazine also recently had an article on the subject as well. But don't let that restrict your research. Look where you wish.

The Big Dog's back

So in other words you don't know.

grumpy

`Sorry I answered your question. The federal gov't is by far the largest employer in the counties around DC. Hedge fund operators live more around NYC. They don't live in DC as crime rate is too high and the schools suck. Don't believe it go to the 2010 census and check the numbers.

The Big Dog's back

I'll help you.
"More than a generation of heavy federal spending, it turns out, has provided the seed money for a Washington economy that now operates globally — less tied to the vicissitudes of the capital's political rhythms," reporter Elizabeth Williamson wrote. "The new moneyed brain trust is being led by professionals in defense, intelligence and data — many of whom excelled initially due to government ties. They've propelled the D.C. region as a leader in the cybersecurity and data sectors, as well as in more specialized areas including educational products and heath care data management."

grumpy

Federal gov't employees and those who sell their services to the highest bidder, the federal gov't. Either way they are getting paid for by getting a check from the federal gov't or in gov't related services to the federal gov't. How does that make them cheaper to govern than States and local governments? it would show that it is more expensive to deal there wouldn't it? You help prove my point about how expensive it is for the federal gov't to govern. Thank you.

The Big Dog's back

They are employed by private companies. They're not politicians. Don't let facts get in the way of your thinking. And, thank you.

grumpy

Who do the private defense, and intelligence companies hire out to? Who did Snowden work for? A private contractor who is contracted to the federal gov't. If they weren't working for, and paid by the federal gov't why would they headquarter there?

Contango

Re: "it would cost more to do things on a local or state basis."

A dollar IS a dollar - no difference in "cost."

DERPY is an fiscal moron.

The Big Dog's back

Kessler's? Is it cheaper to insure 10 people or a group of 200?

grumpy

Let me see if I understand your reasoning. The feds have around a million employees, the State of Ohio has around ten thousand. The feds get insurance for less per employee, I can agree to that... The insurance expense per employee in round numbers in total compensation would be maybe 10% of the employees total compensation give or take a little. The amount the feds discount on insurance wold be 10%-15% max. so it is a savings in insurance of 15% of 10% or a savings of 1.5% of an employees total compensation to do the same work. But since it is in DC, with that in the middle of some of the wealthyest counties in the country, the wages of that employee would have to be 5%-10% more for it to be a fair wage compared to an employee in Columbus where the cost of living is less.. Which more than kills any savings on insurance. Then all services, building maintianence , and any other services needed in DC will be more than in Columbus as every employee would also need a higher wage just to live there. Sorry the math just doesn't add up for the federal gov't costing less.... it adds up to federal gov't costing more than State or local government. But keep grasping at straws, it IS entertaining.

Contango

Re: "Is it cheaper to insure 10 people or a group of 200?"

Depends on the insured liablity DERPY.

The Big Dog's back

Goes for you too pooh so you don't have to ask anymore why the counties surrounding DC are some of the richest. To bad your forbes reporter didn't explain that to you.

Contango

Re: "why the counties surrounding DC are some of the richest."

The Iron Triangle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iro...(US_politics)

How many millions in Wall St. campaign money did Pres. Obama take DERPY? :)

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Expense isn't as important as representation. As it stands now, our own U.S. Representative Kaptur is one voice in D.C. representing ~750,000 people. It won't be much longer before every Rep has a million voices to speak to him/her. The Federal government should only focus on several, smaller issues such as interstate commerce and defense.

Do you know how much I would love to get extremely aggravated at my state and local government over my Federal where I am effectively voice/powerless? Do you know how much I would rather pay higher local and state taxes knowing it goes to the people, projects, and causes that need it most here where I live? To see the direct result of my investment of time, money, and thought?

I would love Ohio to have to be more receptive to ideas, competitive for talents/residents, and less reliant on begging a small pool of politicians for money they don't even have. This is why I also support a return of the Senate to state-elected officials representing the state in the Congress, but that is a side note.

Would you rather have your ideas compete against three-quarters of a million other people or only tens of thousands in state representation? Would you rather it takes people or corporations millions and millions of dollars to reach Washington to lobby or implant ideas - or much less than that to serve Ohio directly? Knowing I can make a huge difference only two hours away is much more supportive and unifying than having not just an eight hour drive but then knowing that nobody cares.

Our Federal government is so backlogged with minutiae they should have no business tending to that it is lowering the quality of life for everyone in our nation. When every little issue becomes a political p*ssing match it is WE who suffer regardless of party affiliation or any other artificial divide we seem to place between each other.

I want our Ohio House and Senate to squabble, moan, and fight over the best way to take care of Ohioans given our unique geography, culture, and assets rather than let someone who may be thrice removed from a Representative or Senator offer suggestions. If a program fails, I only want Ohio to fail and not drag the rest of the country down the tubes with it. When it succeeds, I want to welcome other states to witness what works for us and have them adapt it for themselves.

Contango

Re "support a return of the Senate to state-elected officials representing the state in the Congress,"

Repeal the 17th Amend. - I like it. But, it ain't gonna happen.

grumpy

Good points that I never even saw or considered before. The peoples voice is diluted when the federal gov't governs, compared to when the state governs, and even more so when the local community governs. Thanks for pointing that out.

The Big Dog's back

pooh meet pooh.

Contango
JudgeMeNot

I've always wondered why kool aid drinking liberal Democrats are so adamantly against having to show an ID when you vote. I just don't see the problem. What is the big deal about showing an ID identifying who you are? Some crybaby liberals will spin this thing to death. Enough of the liberal excuses.

OBAMA KOOL AID

Relax -- Drink Up -- No Worries

grumpy

Actually eriemom there would be no way to draw lines for voting districts that isn't without biased representation. The party in power has more votes to redraw the voting districts. The people of the state vote for their representation. This time the dems didn't have enough votes to stop the repubes. Both parties had representatives vote on the districts. Repubes just had more representatives, thus they had more votes. The voting districts are voted on by the entire State legislature.

Contango

The Big Dog's back writes:

"Repubs would be fine with Jim Crow laws."

Unlike the Democrats who "would be fine with" implimenting the Communist Manifesto in order to make EVERYONE slaves to the STATE.

The Big Dog's back

Well, we are already slaves to the Corporations.

Contango

Re: "we are already slaves to the Corporations."

You have a J-O-B DERPY?

The Big Dog's back

I do. Do you derpy?

Contango

Re: "I do."

If you hate being a "slave to the corps." why don't you quit and become a "slave to the State" DERPY?

The Big Dog's back

Why do you feel the need to use other screen names pooh?

Contango

Re: "Why do you feel the need to use other screen names pooh?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n...

KURTje

What Koch brother tried to be the veep for the Liberterian Party? (He lost) Yeah....most of us (U.S.) are peasants in their kingdom.

grumpy

What does that have to do with the Supreme court ruling... or anything else being discussed in this thread?

OMG.LOL.WT_

Read all the comments. Enough laughs for today.

deertracker

Big Dog is too funny!!!!!!!!!

OMG.LOL.WT_

Not ONLY Big Dog!