Four Democrats plead guilty to voter fraud
- Thread starter Lue C Fur
- Start date
Lue C Fur
Evil member
And many of your posts have nothing to do with the subject at hand...just attacks...but thats OK for you and your Buddy TOS? And there is MUCH more going on but you dont know or care about. When a BC member constantly is called out for personal attacks, accusations, lies, and missinformation and continues to run and hide, i guess thats OK with you since its your buddy? Yet you dont know or care....ummmm...OK.
Lue C Fur
Evil member
Whatever. Both try to steal elections. Bunch ofbags. Simple.
Yes, both Repubs and Dems are Douchbags. The book should be thrown at all who violate the law. Maybe one way to help stop voter fraud would be for everyone to present an ID to vote...
Lue C Fur
Evil member
brett636
Well-Known Member
I guess you could say its akin to you going suddenly quiet when I destroyed your argument in the compact truck thread huh?
Lue C Fur
Evil member
No. If you would like to take it up here, fine. If diesels were to be profitable en masse in the U.S., we would have them. If the market for 48mpg cars were much larger than for 37mpg cars we would have them. But that is not the market in this country. Do you think that Ford doesn't bring diesels for any reason other than market forces of supply and demand? Government regulation? What? Ford engineers are not up to the task but VW engineers are? VW has built their demand (a niche as it were) over the years. Ford can and will do the same with the Eco-boost line. Frankly the technology, such as turbo charging and direct injection, are much the same as with diesels but the demand in the U.S. is more gasoline friendly. Again, does Ford care whether their vehicles run on gasoline or diesel? No. They care that they sell at a profit.
The rest of the news doesn't use it as a tag-line.
As a matter of fact, I don't read many of TOS's posts. Too long for me. Same with Wk. (SorryWk.)
brett636
Well-Known Member
Its really not that hard to go back to the thread and reply there. Makes a lot more sense than trying to hold a secondary debate in a thread with a completely different topic. Obviously you are not replying there for a reason and that is because you don't want to admit you have no basis for an argument.
The basis is profit. If companies believed it woud be significantly profitable to put diesels in lower end lines, they would do so. As to where I was wrong, yes, VW sells more diesel jettas than gasoline. However, the percentage of diesel passenger cars sold in the U.S. remains about the same year after year. There is no outcry for a huge influx of diesel passenger vehicles in this country.
moreluck
golden ticket member
The Friday afternoon before Christmas weekend, you think they’re trying to keep this out of the news? Especially when you consider polls show 70% support voter ID laws.
(WaPo) — The Justice Department on Friday entered the divisive national debate over new state voting laws, rejecting South Carolina’s measure requiring photo-identification at the polls as discriminatory against minority voters.
The decision by Justice’s Civil Rights Division could heighten political tensions over the new laws, which critics say could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect President Obama in 2008. A dozen states this year passed laws requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Although Democratic governors vetoed four of the measures, liberal and civil rights groups have raised alarms about the remaining laws. Opponents of the laws say they would discriminate against minorities and others, such as low-income voters, because some don’t have the necessary photo identification and lack the means to easily obtain ID cards.
Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, several of the states that enacted voter-identification laws are required to receive federal “pre-clearance” to ensure that the changes don’t affect minority political power.
In its first decision on one of those new measures, the Justice Department said Friday that South Carolina’s law will discriminate against minority voters, though the department declined to take a position on whether the alleged discrimination was intentional.
The law, passed in May and signed by Gov. Nikki Haley (R), requires voters to show a driver’s license or one of several other forms of photo identification.
The decision by Justice’s Civil Rights Division could heighten political tensions over the new laws, which critics say could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect President Obama in 2008. A dozen states this year passed laws requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Although Democratic governors vetoed four of the measures, liberal and civil rights groups have raised alarms about the remaining laws. Opponents of the laws say they would discriminate against minorities and others, such as low-income voters, because some don’t have the necessary photo identification and lack the means to easily obtain ID cards.
Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, several of the states that enacted voter-identification laws are required to receive federal “pre-clearance” to ensure that the changes don’t affect minority political power.
In its first decision on one of those new measures, the Justice Department said Friday that South Carolina’s law will discriminate against minority voters, though the department declined to take a position on whether the alleged discrimination was intentional.
The law, passed in May and signed by Gov. Nikki Haley (R), requires voters to show a driver’s license or one of several other forms of photo identification.
brett636
Well-Known Member
I will gladly engage you and continue to embarrass you on this topic in the thread that this discussion originated from. The only reason I brought it up was to point out your hypocrisy in this thread by accusing someone of something you are obviously guilty of yourself.
menotyou
bella amicizia
I would own an Audi A3 TDI right now, if I could have found one on the East Coast when I was looking. Instead, my Volvo was marked down almost $15,000.
So, I bought that as a second choice.
And what company wants to mark a car down $15 grand just to move it out the door? I simply maintain that if car companies thought they could make a healthy profit by bringing more and more diesels to market, they would do so. If, however, they have to discount it by more than twice what the diesel option listed for in order to sell it, where is the profit motive?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
The profit motive exists as there are people who do not feel comfortable dickering and simply pay full sticker price.
I am not one of those people.
I am not one of those people.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
As a matter of fact, I don't read many of TOS's posts. Too long for me. Same with Wk. (SorryWk.)
No problem. I have to confess I don't read all your 20 plus something responses on a thread either. I guess posting is like a meal. You can chow down with a good helping and then move on or you can just sit there and pick at all day. But, whatever works right?
And and you might owe Lue an apology as I see it.
You've all but admitted you don't!
I, bbsam, of somewhat noble lineage and far less noble moral character, do hereby submit my most humble of apologies to he known as Lue C Fur on this the eve of the celebration of the birth othe one true Lord and Savior who hat commanded of me, his most humble of servants, that I shall at all times and in all places abmit my loathesome failings not only to Him. But also to my fellow man that I may know true freedom, life and happiness so help me God since we are both ready for some football and getting ready to rumble all for our love of logistics, Amen.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Now that's funny I don't care who you are!
menotyou
bella amicizia
Alan Byer Volvo, Syracuse, NY.
I was just adding that I would have bought a diesel had I been able to.
Similar threads
