I also scored a 30 out of 33, but I'll be honest, I guessed 2 that I got right and the 3 I missed (obviously). Some of those were actually hard and I absolutely love studying American History. It doesn't surprise me what the over all averages were by any means.
Where was all of that anti-black, right-wing voter disenfranchisement this year buddy? Oh that's right....your guy won so there wasn't any.
You still havent swallowed that crow yet huh? Would you like some water to help with that? Show me where I said something about black people being disenfranchised this year? You cant, because I never said it. I believe you should have an I.D to vote or some form of identification. Your ignorance knows no boundaries.
No, blacks are only disenfranchised when Republicans happen to win. When Democrats win, the election system works as smooth as silk. Isn't that amazing!
Its quite obivious that you cant stick to the facts in a debate or conversation. You always return to rhetoric and ideology. Instead of answering my questions, you do like most chicken hawks and run behind a talking point. Good day sir.:thumb:
I didn't mention race so I guess you automatically correlated negative actions with a particular race. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was necessary in 1965 but anyone who tries to say that America in 2008 is even remotely close to 1965 is full of crap. It's just another...in a very long line...of excuses that certain groups make to push the blame to someone else. We have numerous problems in this country and hate has been, and will forever be, present amongst some. To continue making senseless rules, regulations, and laws placing people in special classes is not going to resolve the issue. In fact, in this era, it's only making things worse. People don't have to assimilate and work out their differences. Instead we just make up more policies to avoid the real issues which just opens the door for more waste, fraud, and abuse. Back to disenfranchisement...for the multitude of people who have claimed this for the last three elections...how many were valid? *People who were too stupid to punch a simple ballot? Is that legitimate? *People who failed to register to vote? Is that not personal accountability? *People who waited until 6, 7, 8 p.m. on election day to figure out where to vote? Is that really the fault of the government? We could resolve many issues of disenfranchisement, bias, prejudice, etc. if we didn't have so many people making false claims in hopes of getting something for nothing. It's sad but our morals and ethics continue to deteriorate in this country. That's another reason I don't care for bleeding heart liberals.
I think you are right on some of your points but wrong on many. Disenfranchisement is not monopolized by liberals. The fact of the matter is that disenfranchisement effected poor people, whites, blacks, and latinos. If we followed the premise of this thread, it would be Jim Crow voting laws all over again that disenfranchised whites, blacks, and many other poor people of those races. That didnt have access to decent education. Also, people who make false claims of disenfranchisment dont do it to get hand outs, its either fraud or a legitimate case. Still has nothing to do with government social programs. You mix the two irresponsibly, If you want to talk about welfare and food stamps then start a thread with that.
I don't think anybody here really believes the right to vote will ever be taken away from anybody...especially anyone who can argue a diability, disadvantage, or past discrimination regardless of how long ago it happened. This was just a "what if" discussion. A false claim to disenfranchisement is fraud. Applying for and recieving a government social program benefit through false application or misrepresentation is also fraud. Government programs go way further than just welfare and food stamps as evidenced through the housing market issues that are crippling the economy. I don't believe it only affects liberals but I do believe it happens to a greater extent on that side of the aisle. If not, then I guess the media is bias, as many here have been suggesting, because they only choose to show a very small segment of society when they claim disenfranchisement. It just amazes me how certain groups (male, white, wealthy) are always portrayed as the villain and others (homosexual, minority, poor) are always the victim. It just doesn't hold water yet the accusations continue to occur. :dis: Why do actual "proven" victims (rape, murder, assault) have so few rights, yet people who make verbal accusations without any proof seem to have unlimited rights? Inquiring minds want to know.
???Can you cite the portion of the original Constitution that i supposedly 'really hate'? The constitution left it as a State's Right issue to determine who was eligible to vote, and State's placed many restrictions on voting since the beginning, where the only people eligible to vote in the beginning were white, male, and landowners i believe that paid a poll tax. Later amendments to the constitution placed Federal restrictions and standards on state's voting laws. So we've had voting restrictions since the beginning, very severe restrictions. The founding fathers, i believe, never intended for Voting Rights to be Universal, and with good reason. Now anyone with a pulse over 18 can vote. Most states even allow resident aliens to vote. Only Felons cannot vote in most states but that may change soon. Recent op-eds in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washing Post argued for the Right of Felons to Vote. Hillary Clinton and other Dems are pushing this issue as well, some even arguing that felons in prison should be allowed to vote. WOW, could you imagine prisons swinging local elections? God help us. Anyway, i find this topic interesting, but am under no delusions, as the right to vote has become so cemented in our country, and is going opposite of my beliefs. I fear Franklin, Jefferson, et al's Republic maybe teetering on the edge of a Mob Rule's philosophy. "A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.""
