If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Al Jazeera)   Conservative Jonah Goldberg: 'Youth of the nation are too stupid to vote'   (aljazeera.com) divider line 405
    More: Hero, Jonah Goldberg, Youth of the Nation, United States, William F. Buckley, Liberal Fascism, syndicated columnist, Gore Vidal, John Derbyshire  
•       •       •

4066 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jun 2012 at 4:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



405 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-08 05:23:21 PM  

Saborlas: If stupid people were too stupid to vote, Al Gore would've won in 2000.

/yeah, I went there
//monkeyboy doesn't seem like such a great idea now, right?
///told ya so


0.tqn.com
 
2012-06-08 05:23:40 PM  
Based on the amount of Grey blocks on the average comments page, and given the rate at which this has been increasing, I suspect by the election that every thread will consist of nothing but trolls trolling trolls.
 
2012-06-08 05:23:50 PM  

vernonFL: Leaks, Fast and Furious, private sector doing "fine", I don't see these as major problems, more like dreary day to day DC bullshiat.

I could be wrong though.


Unlike the musings of a conservative pundit about the ill-conceived cult of youth in politics. That's a burning issue.
 
2012-06-08 05:24:26 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Two time Pulitzer winner (oops, nevermind!) Jonah Goldberg completely destroyed. Link


Now THAT is an EPIC smackdown.
 
2012-06-08 05:24:54 PM  

Garet Garrett: vernonFL: Leaks, Fast and Furious, private sector doing "fine", I don't see these as major problems, more like dreary day to day DC bullshiat.

I could be wrong though.

Unlike the musings of a conservative pundit about the ill-conceived cult of youth in politics. That's a burning issue.


Well then why don't you go find another thread to shiat in, if you don't want to talk about the topic of the farking submission.
 
2012-06-08 05:26:20 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Conservative Jonah Goldberg: 'Youth of the nation are too stupid to vote'

Let's examine this for a minute:

-Youth voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat
-Youth voters vote Democrat into office in 1992, 1996
-Jonah Hill says nothing
-Youth voters overwhelmingly voted for the first black president in 2008.
-Jonah Hill says youth voters too stupid to vote


Might Jonah Hill be angry about the first black president being voted in and is taking out his anger on those he perceives as being responsible for it?


1. Who's Jonah Hill?
2. If you mean Jonah Goldberg, he's been writing on this subject since the 90s (i.e., since he was one of the youth he was complaining about even then).
 
2012-06-08 05:27:07 PM  
Unfortunately, he isn't wrong. Our entire culture is shifting the age of true adulthood.

Not too long ago, you could be married, have kids, land a great job, and be a responsible adult by the time you were 18.

In today's age, you go to college until you are 25 and don't have any responsibilities until after you graduate. Even in that instance - most people don't realize how much debt they rack up and end up living at home for a while until they get a job (if they get a job).

It obviously isn't everyone, but generally speaking our culture seems to have shifted the age of a responsible adult to around 25-30.
 
2012-06-08 05:27:44 PM  

Garet Garrett: Unlike the musings of a conservative pundit about the ill-conceived cult of youth in politics. That's a burning issue.


LOL I'm not the editor in chief of the most well known supposedly intelligent "Conservative" magazines in the country.

When someone like that says young people are stupid, think that Socialism is better than Capitalism, and shouldn't be able to vote, yes, its worth discussing.
 
2012-06-08 05:27:45 PM  
tangential as hell, but somewhere around 2 years ago, i entered into an email....erm....discussion with jonah goldberg (the contents of which were only minorly mindbending, which is to be expected when a doughypantload is involved), and gmail defaulted to adding the other party from any email exchange to the address book. this being essentially a spam gathering account at the time, there were no other exchanges or effort to populate the address book.

in the last few months, i've moved to using this account for day to day usage, however the setting for populating the address book either got changed by me or the defaults changed, as no other addresses are automatically added. i readily remember the addresses of people i converse with frequently, and the drop down box remembers what i don't, tho...so ultimately, i'm too lazy to futz with it.

however.

every single day, i end up looking at a screen informing me that the only entry, the only contact, the singular name in my address book is Jonah Goldberg. It asks me if i want to 'Chat' with Jonah Goldberg, even lighting up a little green icon when the Pantload himself is online and available for discourse.

again, tangential as hell, but i figured it was worth documenting - if i end up in a bell tower, i'd have be known what put me up there.
 
2012-06-08 05:28:00 PM  

Garet Garrett: meat0918: Garet Garrett: vernonFL: Garet Garrett: Wow, Fark is really, really hard up for stories that don't have anything to do with the crushingly bad news of late for the Obama administration

What, his "Michelle doesn't go down enough" talk?

How about his "the private sector is doing fine" talk?

It's partially true.

Private sector hiring has been offset by government job losses.

If you're proposing eliminating government jobs from the unemployment numbers, since as the GOP likes to claim the government doesn't create jobs, I'm sure the Obama team would love to do so.

Isn't that what Walker did with his cooked job numbers? Excluded government job losses?

You're too late in your defense of Obama. He's already walked back that comment, and acknowledged that it's "absolutely clear" that the private sector is not doing fine. So Obama COMPLETELY disagrees with what you just said.


Which I expected, because it's pretty clear that while the private sector hasn't been doing fine. The unemployment rate has been impacted by government job losses though. We've had months and months of private sector job growth coupled with months and months of government sector job losses.

Eventually those two were going to butt heads, because you don't farking cut government spending while still climbing your way out of recession, but at a time when the private sector can absorb those jobs.

Otherwise we would have the crying about the "fiscal cliff" we're about to go over.

But, to get back on topic: Jonah Goldberg said the youth of the nation are too stupid to vote, then backed off that claim when the heat got to hot. We don't get to stop ignoring the dumbasses on the right because of the bad economic news headed into summer.
 
2012-06-08 05:28:02 PM  
So, that make Johah Goldberg about five years old?
 
2012-06-08 05:28:04 PM  

Craptastic: I'm not an angry, entitled douchebag. Look how serious I am!
[www.riograndefoundation.org image 224x248]

Why is everybody laughing? STOP LAUGHING!
[crooksandliars.com image 320x240]


He looks like he should be asking you to bring the blue pages.
 
2012-06-08 05:28:13 PM  

LasersHurt: I suspect by the election that every thread will consist of nothing but trolls trolling trolls.


I know you're not new around here so I'll dispense with the standard "Welcome to Fark" retort, but "trolls trolling trolls" may as well be up there on the website banner. I grant you +1 erudite xp.
 
2012-06-08 05:28:23 PM  

LasersHurt: I just had a conversation with a guy yesterday who felt that both the poor and those under 35 should not be allowed to vote.


I wonder what he considers poor, because the people that agree with him and have the power to try to make something like this happen, would probably consider him too poor to vote and take away his right to vote.
 
2012-06-08 05:28:32 PM  
Well, if Fark libs are any indication, then he's spot on.
 
2012-06-08 05:28:35 PM  
Old enough to die for your country = old enough to vote.
 
2012-06-08 05:28:38 PM  

kukukupo: Unfortunately, he isn't wrong. Our entire culture is shifting the age of true adulthood.

Not too long ago, you could be married, have kids, land a great job, and be a responsible adult by the time you were 18.

In today's age, you go to college until you are 25 and don't have any responsibilities until after you graduate. Even in that instance - most people don't realize how much debt they rack up and end up living at home for a while until they get a job (if they get a job).

It obviously isn't everyone, but generally speaking our culture seems to have shifted the age of a responsible adult to around 25-30.


Time dilation. We live longer so all our life phases are being stretched out.
 
2012-06-08 05:29:46 PM  

ongbok: LasersHurt: I just had a conversation with a guy yesterday who felt that both the poor and those under 35 should not be allowed to vote.

I wonder what he considers poor, because the people that agree with him and have the power to try to make something like this happen, would probably consider him too poor to vote and take away his right to vote.


Net income tax levels. If you make little enough money to get a net refund, you do not get to vote.

He was actually under 35, too. Weird guy.
 
2012-06-08 05:31:10 PM  

sabreWulf07: "While I do think someone should knock out all of Goldberg's teeth, I'm not in fact in favor of a national push to find someone to punch him, and I never said I was."

Wow, this is fun game. You can say whatever fantastically f*cktarded thing you want, then walk it back in the same sentence with no consequences. I never read Liberal Fascism -- is the whole book this colossally stupid?


I haven't read the book but I am sure that the book contains the literary equivalent of the contents of a colostomy bag.
 
2012-06-08 05:31:17 PM  

abb3w: So are a lot of rednecks.
Neither, however, are too stupid to be dangerous as cannon fodder in an armed revolt if they are disenfranchised. Thus, we allow both to vote.


Being "smart" isn't the sole factor in making good decisions, either. I can probably give you an infinitely better summary of issues related to scientific policy and nationalization of research funding than Jim-Bob the unemployed fourth-grade dropout that sells moonshine to the reservation, but he's got a better grasp of the realities of rural poverty-level life than I do, and that's not an insignificant portion of the population at all. To properly serve every subset of a society, you need every subset to have a voice in policy.

Unless you want to go all out science and just try shiat at random to see if it works, but that's kind of a dick thing to do to unwilling humans.

//It basically comes back to Hobbes' starting premise: the fundamental difficulty in building a society is that no man is good at everything. Yes, I know he phrased it the way you did, that no man can defend himself perfectly against even inferior opponents, but the actual argument is somewhat broader than that and comes out in his later work.
 
2012-06-08 05:32:29 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Vodka Zombie: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Says the man who invented his "no tax pledge" at the age of eleven.

Wrong dude. Norquist was the tax pledge moron. Goldberg is the imbecile who tried labeling liberals as fascist.

I do find it funny when either of them tries to criticize the intellect of others.

Sorry. Doughy white guys all look the same to me.


gifs.gifbin.com

As a doughy white guy, I'm offended.

No wait, make that depressed.

/weeping into my cheesecake
 
2012-06-08 05:36:06 PM  

Agneska: Well, if Fark libs are any indication, then he's spot on.


How old are you grandpa? Leeching off Medicare yet?

/vote republican
//please?
 
2012-06-08 05:38:18 PM  

skullkrusher: there's no constitutionally guaranteed "right to vote".


I don't see how anyone could possibly claim that. 4 different amendments restrict the government's ability to deny the "right to vote" on certain bases (race, sex, etc.). The 14th amendment mentions the "right to vote." And the 17th amendment specifies that Senators from each state will be "elected by the people thereof."

Is this like the argument that there's no constitutional right to privacy, because even though the 4th amendment restricts the government's ability to infringe that right, the right itself is not explicitly itemized elsewhere, so it doesn't inherently exist?
 
2012-06-08 05:41:50 PM  
What hogwash. Why, just yesterday the youth of America spoke up in glorious ways on the subject of the GOP's non-plan for health coverage. These were not the actions of a stupid demographic.

/still sad I couldn't snag Weedlord Bonerhitler
//if there was an Olympics of Mendacity, the Pantload would be Michael Phelps
 
2012-06-08 05:44:10 PM  

ImpendingCynic: skullkrusher: there's no constitutionally guaranteed "right to vote".

I don't see how anyone could possibly claim that. 4 different amendments restrict the government's ability to deny the "right to vote" on certain bases (race, sex, etc.). The 14th amendment mentions the "right to vote." And the 17th amendment specifies that Senators from each state will be "elected by the people thereof."

Is this like the argument that there's no constitutional right to privacy, because even though the 4th amendment restricts the government's ability to infringe that right, the right itself is not explicitly itemized elsewhere, so it doesn't inherently exist?


dunno what to tell you. There is nothing which guarantees you the right to vote. That is why felons can be constitutionally denied the right to vote even after their prison terms are up. That is not a constitutionally prohibited reason for denial. If there were a "right to vote", then this could not be denied.
 
2012-06-08 05:45:56 PM  

ImpendingCynic: skullkrusher: there's no constitutionally guaranteed "right to vote".

I don't see how anyone could possibly claim that. 4 different amendments restrict the government's ability to deny the "right to vote" on certain bases (race, sex, etc.). The 14th amendment mentions the "right to vote." And the 17th amendment specifies that Senators from each state will be "elected by the people thereof."

Is this like the argument that there's no constitutional right to privacy, because even though the 4th amendment restricts the government's ability to infringe that right, the right itself is not explicitly itemized elsewhere, so it doesn't inherently exist?


Technically speaking, Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 says that members of the House shall be "chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," and (as you pointed out) the 17th Amendment similarly says that members of the Senate shall be "elected by the people thereof." If you are over the age of 18, you actually do have a constitutional right to vote for your representatives and Senators. The reason there's no right to vote for president is because of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, which starts "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." Technically speaking, a state could simply elect to give its electoral votes to the GOP candidate automatically.
 
2012-06-08 05:46:16 PM  

ImpendingCynic: skullkrusher: there's no constitutionally guaranteed "right to vote".

I don't see how anyone could possibly claim that. 4 different amendments restrict the government's ability to deny the "right to vote" on certain bases (race, sex, etc.). The 14th amendment mentions the "right to vote." And the 17th amendment specifies that Senators from each state will be "elected by the people thereof."

Is this like the argument that there's no constitutional right to privacy, because even though the 4th amendment restricts the government's ability to infringe that right, the right itself is not explicitly itemized elsewhere, so it doesn't inherently exist?


Much easier to just say

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
2012-06-08 05:48:21 PM  
Really? I think you'll find we're smarter than you, you goddamn nitwit.
 
2012-06-08 05:48:30 PM  

skullkrusher: That is why felons can be constitutionally denied the right to vote even after their prison terms are up. That is not a constitutionally prohibited reason for denial. If there were a "right to vote", then this could not be denied.


Um, its called "due process"

Rights CAN be denied, but only with due process (ie going to court and being convicted in a fair trail)
 
2012-06-08 05:51:15 PM  

coco ebert: scottydoesntknow: Lorelle: Nah, they're too LAZY to vote.

I would say apathy plays a bigger role in it (which does feed into laziness).

Nowadays it's more about voting for the lesser of two evils instead of who will actually try to improve the country.

I can't stand Obama, but I hate Romney even more. Does that mean I should vote for Obama simply because I hate him less?

I don't think that's it. Young people actually tend to vote more in presidential elections. Local elections are way more consequential for everyday life and often offer up good candidates. Yet, I have never seen young people when I go to vote for local elections. That's only anecdotal of course, the research backs this up as well.


My theory is (going by my 24 year old niece and her friends) is that local elections are for people who are going to be... where they are going to be. This is an age group which has fewer ties to any place, hasn't bought any houses yet (they can't), hasn't found a permanent career yet (they can't), hasn't had kids yet (can't do that either), and has less of a sense of permanence than their parents.

In their parents day by the time one reached their mid 20's they were well on their way to establishing themselves in only one place, with one job. Of course there were exceptions, but as a whole their parents might change careers maybe once, and jobs maybe three or four times in their lives, max... but were able to stay in the same place because there were enough jobs in that place.

If 20-somethings really thought that local elections were important, for school boards , mayors, city councils, even governors, they would be out in force. But they know that the likelihood of being tomorrow where they are now is small, so they simply don't care. Their apathy stems from a lack of belonging.

Presidential elections are different in that no matter where in the country they go, the decisions made by that person will affect them.
 
2012-06-08 05:52:02 PM  

skullkrusher: ImpendingCynic: skullkrusher: there's no constitutionally guaranteed "right to vote".

I don't see how anyone could possibly claim that. 4 different amendments restrict the government's ability to deny the "right to vote" on certain bases (race, sex, etc.). The 14th amendment mentions the "right to vote." And the 17th amendment specifies that Senators from each state will be "elected by the people thereof."

Is this like the argument that there's no constitutional right to privacy, because even though the 4th amendment restricts the government's ability to infringe that right, the right itself is not explicitly itemized elsewhere, so it doesn't inherently exist?

dunno what to tell you. There is nothing which guarantees you the right to vote. That is why felons can be constitutionally denied the right to vote even after their prison terms are up. That is not a constitutionally prohibited reason for denial. If there were a "right to vote", then this could not be denied.


15th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It's the first sentence. It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

A right isn't created by a law, it merely protects it. Everyone has the right to vote by virtue of existing.
 
2012-06-08 05:52:24 PM  
when I protest I protest on the Internet, but only in forums that are rarely seen by people who disagree with me, that way I make the largest difference
 
2012-06-08 05:52:52 PM  

skullkrusher: There is nothing which guarantees you the right to vote. That is why felons can be constitutionally denied the right to vote even after their prison terms are up. That is not a constitutionally prohibited reason for denial. If there were a "right to vote", then this could not be denied.


That's not entirely true. The Supreme Court upheld felon disenfranchisement on the basis of the 14th amendment, which opened the door to such a penalty for those engaged in rebellion or other crimes. That even further supports the idea that the right to vote inherently exists.

If the government stripped voting rights from anyone who has red hair or was born on a Tuesday, you really think the Supreme Court would uphold it?
 
2012-06-08 05:53:07 PM  
It sounds like this Jonah Goldberg guy would probably support some kind of IQ test to prove you are smart enough to vote.
 
2012-06-08 05:53:41 PM  

rewind2846: coco ebert: scottydoesntknow: Lorelle: Nah, they're too LAZY to vote.

I would say apathy plays a bigger role in it (which does feed into laziness).

Nowadays it's more about voting for the lesser of two evils instead of who will actually try to improve the country.

I can't stand Obama, but I hate Romney even more. Does that mean I should vote for Obama simply because I hate him less?

I don't think that's it. Young people actually tend to vote more in presidential elections. Local elections are way more consequential for everyday life and often offer up good candidates. Yet, I have never seen young people when I go to vote for local elections. That's only anecdotal of course, the research backs this up as well.

My theory is (going by my 24 year old niece and her friends) is that local elections are for people who are going to be... where they are going to be. This is an age group which has fewer ties to any place, hasn't bought any houses yet (they can't), hasn't found a permanent career yet (they can't), hasn't had kids yet (can't do that either), and has less of a sense of permanence than their parents.

In their parents day by the time one reached their mid 20's they were well on their way to establishing themselves in only one place, with one job. Of course there were exceptions, but as a whole their parents might change careers maybe once, and jobs maybe three or four times in their lives, max... but were able to stay in the same place because there were enough jobs in that place.

If 20-somethings really thought that local elections were important, for school boards , mayors, city councils, even governors, they would be out in force. But they know that the likelihood of being tomorrow where they are now is small, so they simply don't care. Their apathy stems from a lack of belonging.

Presidential elections are different in that no matter where in the country they go, the decisions made by that person will affect them.


I think that's a very reasonable and well-thought-out look at it. And I have to find myself agreeing - as my twenties wear into their latter years, I find myself slowly getting closer to a solid career and maybe even the ability to own a home. At the same time, local issues are finally starting to matter.
 
2012-06-08 05:53:59 PM  
Translation: "Those darned kids are jeopardizing my cushy desk job and kickbacks by actually investing in the future of this country."
 
2012-06-08 05:54:08 PM  

vernonFL: skullkrusher: That is why felons can be constitutionally denied the right to vote even after their prison terms are up. That is not a constitutionally prohibited reason for denial. If there were a "right to vote", then this could not be denied.

Um, its called "due process"

Rights CAN be denied, but only with due process (ie going to court and being convicted in a fair trail)


Actually, I believe that the reason felons can have their right to vote violated is because it passes strict scrutiny, i.e. it serves a compelling state interest and is a narrowly tailored regulation.
 
2012-06-08 05:54:31 PM  

LasersHurt: Based on the amount of Grey blocks on the average comments page, and given the rate at which this has been increasing, I suspect by the election that every thread will consist of nothing but trolls trolling trolls.


userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2012-06-08 05:57:05 PM  

skullkrusher: dunno what to tell you. There is nothing which guarantees you the right to vote. That is why felons can be constitutionally denied the right to vote even after their prison terms are up. That is not a constitutionally prohibited reason for denial. If there were a "right to vote", then this could not be denied.


Let's say I were to take this as a standard of proof.

Are you saying, then, that there's no right to bear arms? Felons can't legally buy those.

Felons are denied all sorts of rights. Heck, in some cases the government can legally kill them. It's not a useful standard.
 
2012-06-08 05:57:12 PM  

Serious Black: Oh, and since nobody has mentioned it yet, not only does Jonah Goldberg think that young people shouldn't be allowed to vote, but he also thinks that they may need to be literally beaten by conservatives for believing in socialism? Money quote:

"The fact that young people think socialism is better than capitalism. That's proof of what social scientists call their stupidity and their ignorance. And that's something that conservatives have to beat out of them. Either literally or figuratively as far as I'm concerned."

What a farking twunt rag.


I literally want someone to give this asshat's testicles a good, solid, 2.5 turn twist, for either abusing the terms literal/figurative in such a manner, or for advocating literally beating people for having opposing opinions.
 
2012-06-08 06:01:35 PM  

Serious Black: The reason there's no right to vote for president is because of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, which starts "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." Technically speaking, a state could simply elect to give its electoral votes to the GOP candidate automatically.


Except that if you accept the argument that the various amendments confirm the right to vote, the 24th amendment specifically refers to the right to vote in presidential elections.
 
2012-06-08 06:01:39 PM  

RyogaM: Serious Black: Oh, and since nobody has mentioned it yet, not only does Jonah Goldberg think that young people shouldn't be allowed to vote, but he also thinks that they may need to be literally beaten by conservatives for believing in socialism? Money quote:

"The fact that young people think socialism is better than capitalism. That's proof of what social scientists call their stupidity and their ignorance. And that's something that conservatives have to beat out of them. Either literally or figuratively as far as I'm concerned."

What a farking twunt rag.

I literally want someone to give this asshat's testicles a good, solid, 2.5 turn twist, for either abusing the terms literal/figurative in such a manner, or for advocating literally beating people for having opposing opinions.


I heard recently that some woman squeezed a guy's scrotum so hard that it ripped open and his testicles literally popped out. That seems more humane than twisting them off.
 
2012-06-08 06:03:17 PM  

ImpendingCynic: skullkrusher: There is nothing which guarantees you the right to vote. That is why felons can be constitutionally denied the right to vote even after their prison terms are up. That is not a constitutionally prohibited reason for denial. If there were a "right to vote", then this could not be denied.

That's not entirely true. The Supreme Court upheld felon disenfranchisement on the basis of the 14th amendment, which opened the door to such a penalty for those engaged in rebellion or other crimes. That even further supports the idea that the right to vote inherently exists.

If the government stripped voting rights from anyone who has red hair or was born on a Tuesday, you really think the Supreme Court would uphold it?


I'd imagine not but that is a different animal than a constructional right to vote. You have a constitutional right to a jury trial if you are prosecuted for a crime. You do not have a constitutional right to travel by public bus but you cannot be denied taking the bus if it exists based on race, creed, etc
 
2012-06-08 06:04:40 PM  

Diogenes: The_Gallant_Gallstone: The article pretty much hits it on the head:

"Goldberg can be grating. It's as if he covets the image of a man with the courage to say shocking things - like "I think the voting age should be much higher" - but once that shocking thing elicits a reaction, his bowels turn to water. Then he says he didn't mean what you thought he meant. You must not understand. Theatrical unseriousness like this drives people crazy."

That's a great observation.




It is... except that it's not a very new one, nor is it limited to just Jonah Goldberg. It's true of pretty much all conservatives from the very top all the way down.

Conservatives LOVE the idea of being people who "tell it like it is," where "telling it like it is" generally involves saying something petty and stupid and mean-spirited and offensive about some "other," another person, another group, another religion, another anything.

It's the source of their "sure... libs are all tolerant and understanding and respectful of other cultures, till they hear something they don't like then they try to stomp on other people's freedom of speech!!!!"

Conservatives want to go on TV and share their brilliant egalitarian philosophical observations like "there's a difference between being black and being a ni**er" and have the whole country eat it up and go "helll yeah, Bubba! That's the plain truth" just like the other dipshiats at the Boar's Crest, TN Waffle House do on a Saturday night after the bars have closed. When everyone else goes "are you farking brain damaged?" They get all backpedal-y and butthurt about political correctness.
 
2012-06-08 06:05:43 PM  
They can raise the voting age to 21 when they make military service compulsory for anyone making over $250k.

/hey, if theyre gonna cry 'class warfare,' they should welcome the training
 
2012-06-08 06:06:56 PM  
Lots of people are too stupid to vote...but they still get to vote.
 
2012-06-08 06:07:40 PM  
Goddamn. There are times --the recent Walker recall being an example -- when I've inwardly felt that some people are just too goddamn dumb to vote. I may have said so in a fit of frustrated cynicism. But I have never advocated voter disenfranchisement. And I certainly never would, especially to a major news outlet. Why anybody values this man's opinion baffles me.
 
2012-06-08 06:09:10 PM  
That's fairly amusing coming from a twatwaffle who writes books about "liberal facism".
If they're old enough to go to war and die for your neo-con, chickenhawk ass, they're old enough to vote.
 
2012-06-08 06:09:14 PM  

Epoch_Zero: skullkrusher: ImpendingCynic: skullkrusher: there's no constitutionally guaranteed "right to vote".

I don't see how anyone could possibly claim that. 4 different amendments restrict the government's ability to deny the "right to vote" on certain bases (race, sex, etc.). The 14th amendment mentions the "right to vote." And the 17th amendment specifies that Senators from each state will be "elected by the people thereof."

Is this like the argument that there's no constitutional right to privacy, because even though the 4th amendment restricts the government's ability to infringe that right, the right itself is not explicitly itemized elsewhere, so it doesn't inherently exist?

dunno what to tell you. There is nothing which guarantees you the right to vote. That is why felons can be constitutionally denied the right to vote even after their prison terms are up. That is not a constitutionally prohibited reason for denial. If there were a "right to vote", then this could not be denied.

15th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It's the first sentence. It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

A right isn't created by a law, it merely protects it. Everyone has the right to vote by virtue of existing.


Heck, I'd argue that at the least, a felon who served their time should be allowed to vote. If you're OK to rejoin society, you should be OK to participate in it. It's even stranger that this presently varies state by state for felons.

12 states: Can permanently lose the right to vote.
18 states: Can't vote while in jail, on parole, or on probation.
5 states: Can't vote while in jail or on parole.
13 states + DC: Can't vote while in jail. (I'm in this bin, philosophically.)
2 states: Can always vote.

Heck, in Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, and South Dakota you can't vote while serving time for a misdemeanor.
 
2012-06-08 06:11:16 PM  

skullkrusher: I'd imagine not but that is a different animal than a constructional right to vote. You have a constitutional right to a jury trial if you are prosecuted for a crime.


Ok, so what I'm hearing is there's a difference between:

a) "You have a right to XXX..."

and

b) "Your right to XXX shall not be abridged or infringed..."

The idea being that b) implies that such a right exists, but since it's not specifically itemized, like a), it doesn't actually exist. By that standard, there's no right to freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or to bear arms, because they're written in the b) style. Is that what you're saying?
 
Displayed 50 of 405 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report