The POOR shouldn't be able to vote.

[wispandex_bulge]

Yes it is.Republican lawmakers are introducing legislation that would make it more difficult to use specific methods of registering to vote. These targeted methods of registration have been historically used by the poor, ethnic minorities and young people to register. These groups have historically voted Democrat. This action is intended to specifically discourage specific groups from registering and voting. I can't make it any more clear than this.

This statement is just plain incorrect. Its a matter of logic as I have already laid out above.

As a point of logic, not actively encouraging and regestering a target bloc to vote does not disallow them to regiester and vote on their own. In the end, the result may be that fewer of that bloc vote, but they are still equally able and free to vote.

Conversely, passing a law that increases a hurdle over which people must jump in order to vote does inhibit and may disallow certain people from voting. In the end, the result could very well be that fewer of the targeted bloc vote, but in this case, it is because their right to vote has been limited.

Although the two might have some similar end-effects, the specifics of each are very different.

If said unnamed accusations are in attempts to tie small business administration and chamber of commerce dealings to Jews or Muslim extremists or aliens or Nazi's, then yeah, I'll agree- they're Glenn Beck-esque.

Hardly, but they like to point blame at rich people, conservatives, and Christians.

The difference between them would remain- the right has Glenn Beck and the left simply doesn't. The staunchest leftist out there is no where near a match for the sheer volume of crazy that man (and the others eerily similar to him) have produced over the years can only be matched in lunacy by the plots of B Hollywood movies (and... you know, the Matrix sequels.)

The lines he draws are generally not unreasonable and if you bothered to pay attention to his whole argument you woudl see that they tend to fit together in a way that makes natural sense (as long as you are willing to admit that Democrats and Progressives can make bad choices). I don't know or assert that his conclusions are always correct, but his arguments are not as unreasonable as you claim them to be.

ACORN? No, not fraud there...
Pajamas Media
The article even says that ACORN reps were told to tell the people to vote Democrat.

Thank you for corroborating my point. Unfortuately it wont convince those in denial.

What is everyone's take on the electoral college? I've never been a fan. Why bother to vote at all in cases where your vote only ever counts as a suggestion to a representative who casts whatever vote he or she wishes in place of the representees?

The electoral college can actually help prevent tyranny of the majority in the legislature by ensuring that rural voices are heard over the din of city voices. Currenly the urban population is somethign like 60% in this country, but the percentage varies by state. If a state such as Iowa or Nebraska, which may have a >50% rural population had their votes split, the interests of cities would win out nationwide every time, but by having a winner take all approach, the states rural populations can vote according to their concerns and the state as a whole votes for the candidate that is thought to best work for that state. It is ultimately important that the president be chosen as someone who will treat rural and poorer states equal to the larger and wealthier states.

True. Many of the ultra conservative tea party supporters are dirt poor. The REAL problem isn't poor minorities, but poor, UNEDUCATED minorities. We need to fix the school system first and provide people with knowledge and training so they can be productive, contributing members of the society.

Sounds a bit like it could be indoctrination to me. You are suggesting that uneducated people support the tea party movement and that educated people would support Democrats or Progressives. I counter that that may be true, but only because academia often tries to mold the thought processes of students to match what they deem correct, often under the guise of "critical thinking." If you are intellectually honest, really examine the issues at hand, and use fairly simple logic to work through arguments, you will find that many of the arguments the left tries to make are either very weak or just wrong.

For example, Bill Press was saying that Republican governors who wanted to refuse federal stimulus money should be denied federal disaster relief, because if they dont want federal assistance they should be forced to deal with things like natural disaster on their own. This is typical comparison made by the left, but it is intellectually dishonest and here's why. The stimulus was a federal program with an agenda, explicitly to create jobs on the federal dime, but also as a political tool to show that the Obama administration was doing somethign to promote jobs. Republican governors who saw through this knew that taking the funds could backfire due to obligatory strings attached tot he federal money and if there werent "shovel-ready" jobs to sink the money in. It would be possible for a governor to increase jobs and economic prosperity and fix budget issues in his or her own state without the federal stimulus. Federal disaster releif on the other hand is help for those people most affected by natural disaster. It is in place to kick in when an emergency situation happens, like a hurricaine or earthquake. The funds are not given to the state to be used entirely at the states discretion but targeted for the affected communities. In addition, cleanup efforts following a natural disaster can often be too large for a state budget to handle. The two federal monies are just not comparable in the way Mr. Press was suggesting.

 

[hypoc8]

Yeah I honestly wonder what these people would do if all the dirty poor people were gone. Would they pick up the trash? Pave the roads? I think not.

Umm, maybe you forgot but aren't these the jobs that all the illegals do since we citizens are to good to do them?

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

The lines he draws are generally not unreasonable

That's pretty much the end of any affiliation I have with a person, even as casual as responding to their posts on a fairly anonymous forum. Once the "I think Glen Beck is reasonable" card gets played, I fold and walk away from the table.

So far removed from reality is anyone who thinks this my words will likely not even register as the same language so communicating to said form of life would prove as fruitful as trying to doge rain drops.



JSZ

 

[travis1985]

That's pretty much the end of any affiliation I have with a person, even as casual as responding to their posts on a fairly anonymous forum. Once the "I think Glen Beck is reasonable" card gets played, I fold and walk away from the table.

So far removed from reality is anyone who thinks this my words will likely not even register as the same language so communicating to said form of life would prove as fruitful as trying to doge rain drops.

You may walk away from the table and fold when you hear something that sounds ludicrous to you, but you might have your mind expanded if you kept your seat long enough to see what their hand was.

 

[w1952tq]

I just wanna choke the living daylights out of the damn neo-cons. they can eat shit and die.

 

[travis1985]

How tolerant of you.

 

[w1952tq]

Thank you

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

You may walk away from the table and fold when you hear something that sounds ludicrous to you, but you might have your mind expanded if you kept your seat long enough to see what their hand was.

And you'd be right if I were talking about all Conservatives everywhere, regardless of the subject being discussed, but I'm not. I'm talking about Glenn Fucking Beck- the man is certifiably insane. I've heard more than a lifetimes worth of unbridled lunacy and unabashed hate speech from this man in just quotes and clips found in publications and broadcasts I don't feel physically ill after engaging.

I know what "hand" he's playing and I find it not only to be reprehensible but to be the prime example of the willful ignorance that delays progress in literally every way it can. If I really have to quote examples of just how bat shit crazy Glenn Beck is I will;

"This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." (Glenn Beck: Obama Is a Racist - CBS News)

"The only [Katrina victims] we're seeing on television are the scumbags."

"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." (Glenn Beck called hurricane survivors in New Orleans "scumbags," said he "hates" 9-11 families | Media Matters for America)

"So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research. ... Eugenics. In case you don't know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. ... The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening."
(Beck: Stem-cell research will lead directly to the search for a new ‘master race.’ | ThinkProgress)

"O-L-I-G-A-R-H-Y." –misspelling "oligarchy" on his chalk board while claiming he had deciphered a secret code that he said was proof President Obama was trying to create an "Oligarhy," Aug. 27, 2009, Glenn Beck show on FOX News Channel.


That's just a handful off the first page I found when I typed "Glenn Beck quotes" in Google. I mean... do I really have to justify why I don't take this person seriously or give him (or his willfully blind supporters) the time of day? I don't... to anyone that doesn't fit that description I suppose. Listening to Glenn Beck and gleaning truth from what he says makes you so open minded... your brain falls out.




JSZ

 

[D_Sam Rockswell]

Hey, I don't mind if they give you a vote for each tax dollar you pay... the wealthy aren't paying taxes! (said tongue firmly planted in cheek for those of you remotely entertaining the idea that I agree with this crap).

There's a BIG problem with this country and its the large and growing gap between the "haves" and the "have nots".

For those who are cheering on the ranks of the "rich", I suggest you take a look in the mirror. Unless you're doing it in the bathroom of your several million dollar home, guess what, asshat... YOU'RE NOT RICH. You're part of the "poor" this guy is talking about.

Oh, sure, you don't think you're "poor" but if you took a measure of your wealth and compared it to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, or Sean Hannity, you would be the guy in the locker room nervously peering at the big cocked guy and tugging pitifully on your very small cock.

haha i second third and forth that. It always amazes me just how many people incorrectly align themselves with people who couldn't mustard up a loogie for a person on fire. When the last economic downturn pretty much set the major of america a flame.

As in this who even use to be "middle class" are now fighting for that title.

 

[Bbucko]

"Learn to read"? You don't have to get defensive and adolescent. I was trying to clarify your position, one that still isn't clear. If civil rights should not be put to a vote, how else can they be established in a way consistent with our nation's values? Do you think anything that can be tied to "gay rights" is just so obvious that it need not be discussed, but should just be assumed into law?

I have stated my position regarding civil rights and referenda-voting for years here, and you're the first person I've come across who doesn't feel as though I'm being clear. At a time when one of the leading candidates for president (Perry) actually calls for a reinstatement of sodomy laws even after they were found to be unconstitutional, this isn't some abstract debate. Reactionary forces are at work to "take back" the country, though from whom and to which date remains unclear.

HungNineBud and dandelion sum up my feelings quite eloquently:

Think about it this way. Why should civil rights be put to a vote when our Constitution enshrines a set of "inalienable rights" for our nation's population? Are civil rights incongruent with our general use of the words "freedom" and "liberty" to describe the floor of rights individuals must possess?

The short answer is that the Supreme Court has established through precedent that the will of a majority should never infringe on the rights of a minority group. If rights were put to a vote in the way you're attesting, we would still have majoritarian consensus in history that the world was flat, that racial differences are species-level differences, that interracial marriage is forbidden, and other social ills that we have overcome.

Through American history, we have had a pretty bad habit of using legal restrictions to curtail the rights of those who didn't exactly resemble the spitting image of our forefathers -- that is, white free men of economic and social privilege. Especially if money is the litmus test for granting one groups rights versus other groups, then white rich men are probably the first ones in line to crack down on other people's privileges deemed to take something away from them -- whatever form you think it like taxes or representation.

Well what do I know? Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. How do you find out what the people want unless you ask them? We hold these truths to be self evident.

I guess thats just propaganda distributed by some people who want to look good? Wouldnt dream of implementing it.

In the US we have three branches of equal strength and importance. Deriding the SCOTUS and "judicial activism" is a popular game to play among conservatives and has been ever since Roe v. Wade. When marriage equality comes up, and it's decided that the individual states' constitutional bans are unconstitutional, there will be howling aplenty

 

[Horrible]

I've heard people argue that the only people allowed to vote should be property owners.

Offhand, that seems like a great idea.

 

[SuckmeNOW]

Thats disgusting!

 

[ReallySmall]

'with liberty and justice for ALL'

Funnily enough, the men who wrote hose words also thought the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote...

 

[wallyj84]

Offhand, that seems like a great idea.

Why? Why is it a good thing to disenfranchise a large portion of the population like that?

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

Why? Why is it a good thing to disenfranchise a large portion of the population like that?

I also question why that seems like a good idea. Any number of issues that are put to a vote have absolutely nothing to do with land. Owning it would then seem a very arbitrary prerequisite for participation. Even things that do involve land to some extent... I mean unless you owned entire states it would still be a pretty silly thing to qualify someone for voting.



JSZ

 

[wispandex_bulge]

"This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." (Glenn Beck: Obama Is a Racist - CBS News)

Although it is not presented in its entirety in this quote, Glenn Beck made an argument why Barack Obama could be viewed as racist. Then, he asserts his own belief.

You, on the other hand, assert that Glenn Beck is insane, something that your quotes and stories do not prove. Your quotes do prove that Glenn Beck is a passionate and strong in his beliefs, but not insane. Your touting of the "insane" label is nothign but a liberal talking point, the analogue of what many on the left so often accuse of whom pose an idea contrary to their own belief.

So if you wish to "leave the table", I bid you good day and to your weak arguments and talking points.

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

Although it is not presented in its entirety in this quote, Glenn Beck made an argument why Barack Obama could be viewed as racist. Then, he asserts his own belief.

You, on the other hand, assert that Glenn Beck is insane, something that your quotes and stories do not prove. Your quotes do prove that Glenn Beck is a passionate and strong in his beliefs, but not insane. Your touting of the "insane" label is nothign but a liberal talking point, the analogue of what many on the left so often accuse of whom pose an idea contrary to their own belief.

So if you wish to "leave the table", I bid you good day and to your weak arguments and talking points.

I like how you didn't touch the rest of them (or any of the other hundreds of ridiculous statements he's made over the years.) I like how rather than defend Glenn Beck (something I attest must be very difficult to do) you turn on me and the use of the word "insane." "Insane" isn't a liberal talking point. I don't accuse people who posses contrary ideas of being crazy, much as you'd like me to, it's just Glenn Beck in this case.

Liberal versus conservative is one thing but when you're talking about the opposite side of the fence from Glenn Beck you're talking about reality. Reality is the nemesis of the Beck school of thought and when reality is on your side you don't really need a degree from Harvard Law to secure a "win." He doesn't deserve the time it's taken me to write this (nor do any of his supporters- once you've said aloud "I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist with a pension for thinly veiled attempts to mask my racism, ultra nationalism, and outright hypocrisy" what good do I get as a fellow human being from speaking with you other than appreciation for the fact that my brain developed beyond the third grade?)

If you want to be taken seriously, I wouldn't start by voicing my support of a nutcase.



JSZ

 

[Horrible]

Why? Why is it a good thing to disenfranchise a large portion of the population like that?

I think qualifying oneself to vote is a good idea. Other than simply being a citizen. Owning land signifies the willingness to invest in your country. And it would stand to reason, in theory at least, that persons willing to invest in their country would vote for what would be best for her.

Just a nice thought.

 

[B_enzia35]

Owning land=skin in the game.

Have you ever watched Beck's show? I find that most people who don't like him haven't even watched his show.

 

[airman]

so whoever believes that poor ppl shoudnt vote i think they should climb to to the top of mount everest and jus enjoy being on top of the world then jump off...fuckin elitism is ridiculous they are people as well wheather or not they were born with the silver spoon.