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.

(USA Today)   You know all those GOP efforts to supress the black vote in 2012? They failed-spectacularly. New data shows that for the first time ever, black voter turn-out rates exceeded those of whites-and provided Obama his entire margin of victory   (usatoday.com) divider line 238
    More: Interesting, GOP, obama, Michael McDonald, white people  
•       •       •

1320 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 05:32:06 PM
Glad subby agrees that requiring a photo ID does not suppress votes and we can make this a national requirement.  I love when Americans can agree on things.
 
2013-04-29 05:33:07 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Yeah, just like Reagan's son.

I'm sorry. I should have realized you were looking for an excuse to pull a "Regan had alzshiemer's!" clip from your cut-n-paste archive.

We get it. Reagan had alzheimers.

That is utterly and completely unrelated to the point about the GOP going off the rails into derp-dom.


I'd say that Reagan's reputation for relying on silly anecdotes helped lead the GOP off the rails.

From Murray Rothbard (by no means a liberal):

Sometimes, Reagan's retentive memory - important for an actor - gave his handlers trouble. Evidently lacking the capacity for reasoned thought, Reagan's mind is filled with anecdotes, most of them dead wrong, that he has soaked up over the years in the course of reading Reader's Digest or at idle conversation. Once an anecdote enters Reagan's noodle, it is set in concrete and impossible to correct or dislodge. (Consider, for example, the famous story about the "Chicago welfare queen": all wrong, but Reagan carried on regardless.)

In the early years of Reagan rule, the press busily checked out Reagan's beloved anecdotes, and found that almost every one of them was full of holes. But Reagan never veered from his course. Why? God knows there are plenty of correct stories about welfare cheats that he could have clasped to his bosom; why stick to false ones? Evidently, the reason is that Reagan cares little about reality; he lives in his own Hollywood fantasy world, a world of myth, a world in which it is always Morning in America, a world where The Flag is always flying, but where Welfare Cheats mar the contentment of the Land of Oz. So who cares if the actual story is wrong? Let it stand, like a Hollywood story, as a surrogate for the welfare cheats whom everyone knows do exist.

The degree to which Reagan is out of touch with reality was best demonstrated in his concentration camp story. This was not simply a slip of the tongue, a Bushian confusion of December with September. When the Premier of Israel visited Reagan at the White House, the President went on and on for three quarters of an hour explaining why he was pro-Jewish: it was because, being in the Signal Corps in World War II, he visited Buchenwald shortly after the Nazi defeat and helped to take films of that camp. Reagan repeated this story the following day to an Israeli ambassador. But the truth was 180-degrees different; Reagan was not in Europe; he never saw a concentration camp; he spent the entire war in the safety of Hollywood, making films for the armed forces.

Well, what are we to make of this incident? This little saga stayed in the back pages of the press. By that point the media had realized that virtually nothing - no fact, no dark deed - could ever stick to the Teflon President.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html
 
2013-04-29 05:34:22 PM

HighOnCraic: Fine, wave your hands and make the time-period specific attitudes disappear. After all, nobody thinks like that anymore. . .


I didn't say they disappeared. Those statements were related to a specific point in the civil rights struggle and are contextually within a society, culture and worldview that (thankfully) does not exist in the same way today. But since we all (including the man who said them) recognize them as being wrong, there is no point is debating them.

What, exactly, are you beating this horse for? As I said above, I think this sub-topic has been addressed.
 
2013-04-29 05:38:43 PM

HighOnCraic: From Murray Rothbard (by no means a liberal):


Again. I get that you want to dog on Reagan, and you have a whole slew of nifty cut-n-pastes ready to go. It's all very impressive, and all very irrlevant.
 
2013-04-29 05:40:28 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Fine, wave your hands and make the time-period specific attitudes disappear. After all, nobody thinks like that anymore. . .

I didn't say they disappeared. Those statements were related to a specific point in the civil rights struggle and are contextually within a society, culture and worldview that (thankfully) does not exist in the same way today. But since we all (including the man who said them) recognize them as being wrong, there is no point is debating them.

What, exactly, are you beating this horse for? As I said above, I think this sub-topic has been addressed.


I'd say the issue of conservative attitudes about the voting rights act (and the supposed horrors its passage would lead to) is relevant to why black voters became such a reliable voting block for the Democratic Party.
 
2013-04-29 05:40:35 PM

Smelly McUgly: BojanglesPaladin: Smelly McUgly: Let's see, the Democrats got me the Civil Rights Act

Be sure to check the party membership of the viotes on that one.

LBJ (D-TX) calling in favors, twisting arms, and straight up intimidating fools to get people to vote for it gets my credit on that one.


He also caused a schism within his own party to pass it.
 
2013-04-29 05:43:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: From Murray Rothbard (by no means a liberal):

Again. I get that you want to dog on Reagan, and you have a whole slew of nifty cut-n-pastes ready to go. It's all very impressive, and all very irrlevant.


It's not so much that I want to dog on Reagan, I'm just surprised that you would bring him up as an example of an intellectual conservative, when most people on both sides of the aisle would strongly disagree.
 
2013-04-29 05:45:33 PM

jpo2269: Glad subby agrees that requiring a photo ID does not suppress votes and we can make this a national requirement.  I love when Americans can agree on things.


Huh?
 
2013-04-29 05:46:01 PM

HighOnCraic: I'd say the issue of conservative attitudes about the voting rights act (and the supposed horrors its passage would lead to) is relevant to why black voters became such a reliable voting block for the Democratic Party.


I don't think anyone is disputing that blacks don't vote Republican because they see the Republican as adverserial.  No one is arguing that the "Southern Strategy" didn't happen.
 
2013-04-29 05:48:51 PM

HighOnCraic: m just surprised that you would bring him up as an example of an intellectual conservative,


I did not say Reagan was an intellectual. I said the modern GOP is anti-intellectual.

Read up or more slowly. Again:

BojanglesPaladin: But I used the phrase "pragmatic, principled policy" to describe Reagan and others.

 
2013-04-29 05:51:46 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: I'd say the issue of conservative attitudes about the voting rights act (and the supposed horrors its passage would lead to) is relevant to why black voters became such a reliable voting block for the Democratic Party.

I don't think anyone is disputing that blacks don't vote Republican because they see the Republican as adverserial.  No one is arguing that the "Southern Strategy" didn't happen.


Not you personally, but I can pull up a bunch of citations of Republicans who actually have made that argument.  It's the main topic of Ann Coulter's latest book.  There's something on the National Review Online about Goldwater being a civil rights hero in Phoenix (never mind that he's the one who advised the GOP to "go hunting where the ducks are" in the early 60s).  It happens a lot here on Fark, as well.
 
2013-04-29 05:57:18 PM

HighOnCraic: I can pull up a bunch of citations of Republicans who actually have made that argument.


And I can pull up a bunch of citations of Democrats who actually advocate segregation.

I'm not at all interested in playing "dueling quotes of cut-n-paste".

I don't think there is anything being said here.
 
2013-04-29 06:03:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: I can pull up a bunch of citations of Republicans who actually have made that argument.

And I can pull up a bunch of citations of Democrats who actually advocate segregation.

I'm not at all interested in playing "dueling quotes of cut-n-paste".

I don't think there is anything being said here.


Sure you could. Except those comments would be from 1964.
 
2013-04-29 06:04:33 PM

Fart_Machine: Except those comments would be from 1964.


Many of the ones from HoC have been. Did you have a point?
 
2013-04-29 06:08:10 PM

HighOnCraic: Evidently, the reason is that Reagan cares little about reality; he lives in his own Hollywood fantasy world, a world of myth, a world in which it is always Morning in America, a world where The Flag is always flying, but where Welfare Cheats mar the contentment of the Land of Oz. So who cares if the actual story is wrong? Let it stand, like a Hollywood story, as a surrogate for the welfare cheats whom everyone knows do exist.



Having been through the 80's myself ( I was in my 20's) after the crap that came down in the 70's with the death of disco, the Watergate scandal and Nixon/Agnew, the gas crisis and the rise of Middle East power, and Jimmy Carter truthfully telling them that they had better get their sh*t together, too many americans just wanted to "feel good" again. That feel-good-ism was embodied in the person and the PR of one Ronald Wilson Reagan, a b-movie actor who knew just what lines to say and more importantly how to say them.
As you point out with the "morning in America" campaign, which contains no concrete statements of policy but wheat fields and tractors and flags and well-scrubbed white people and sunrises a-plenty, that is what those americans wanted... that hollywoodized idea of what they thought this country should be.
A country like they remembered, or at least thought they did. Little did they realize who was really pulling the strings.
 
2013-04-29 06:10:10 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Fart_Machine: Except those comments would be from 1964.

Many of the ones from HoC have been. Did you have a point?


My citations would be from this year.
 
2013-04-29 06:14:48 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Fart_Machine: Except those comments would be from 1964.

Many of the ones from HoC have been. Did you have a point?


Democrats comment in favor of segregation during the 60s. Republicans in denial the Southern Strategy ever took place - today. Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.
 
2013-04-29 06:15:59 PM

HighOnCraic: No one is arguing that the "Southern Strategy" didn't happen.


As a side note, I think that there is a valid argument to be made that the shift was not entirely due to the "Southern Strategy". As a reaction to, or symbiotic with, the attempts of the GOP to pull Southern conservatives, the DNC also engaged in a systematic effort to form a coalition of the miniorites with specific outreaches to minorities, special interest groups like the gays, intellectual liberals, etc. on the (correct) premise that enough small groups combined with a section of the majority white vote would be enough to maintian (and regain) control. Even if the GOP was able to pull away a significant portion of their previous reliable southern base.

This strategy had a side effect of accelerating the shift. Even into the 80s, much of the south was still firmly democrat. But as the 80s and 90s passed, the DNCs own percieved open embracing of gay agenda platforms, sometime apparant disdain and hostility toward evengelicals, and decided pro-abortion stance, "urban" centered policy, rampant social spending, etc.  and a variety of other "wedge issues" began to drive away some of the DNC base as surely as the GOP was trying to attract them.

The DNC calculated that they needed the high-density urban and more liberal/prigressive populations more than they need the "fly-over state" voters, and seemed willing to let the questionably loyal bible belt go in order to secure the full loyalty of a coalition of smaller blocs.
 
2013-04-29 06:17:54 PM

HighOnCraic: My citations would be from this year.


Buckly has been dead for a long time, and the quote was from the CRA era.

Fart_Machine: Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.


I don't think I made that comparison.
 
2013-04-29 06:19:05 PM
I'm done for the day.

You two guys should be able to carry on fine without me.
 
2013-04-29 06:23:32 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: My citations would be from this year.

Buckly has been dead for a long time, and the quote was from the CRA era.

Fart_Machine: Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.

I don't think I made that comparison.


My quotes of Republicans denying the Southern Strategy would be from this year (and last year, when Coulter's latest book came out.  There's an article on NRO, published today, that describes Goldwater's efforts to end segregation at the local level, while ignoring his opposition the Warren Court's decision to end segregation through Federal action (in his chapter on civil rights in "The Conscience of a Conservative").

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346861/desegregation-brown
 
2013-04-29 07:31:05 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: ...In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called "The Issue at Selma," he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates.

...could you articulate which parts of this you think are wrong?

For instance, do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?

Buckley wasn't merely advocating for voters having a high school education as a matter of principle, but as a matter of law. You cannot divorce Buckley's argument from its legal implication, because the entire purpose of Buckley's argument rested on it being a legal matter, not one to simply banter about over tea.

In the previous election the GOP in the states used laws to try to prevent voting from demographics that would most likely vote for the Democratic Party. They weren't arguing positions in the abstract, they were passing laws.

Also, I answered your question previously and you didn't bother to address it. So here it is again:

DeArmondVI: I am of the opinion that our civics education in the country is awful and needs to be improved, and we would all benefit from more people finishing school.

Ultimately, however, the uneducated should have just as many rights as the educated.

 
2013-04-29 09:47:04 PM
www.my-english-courses.com
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-29 09:49:04 PM
s-ak.buzzfed.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-29 09:52:41 PM
uploads.neatorama.com
 
2013-04-29 10:44:37 PM

Peki: What's really funny is the hard line against education after this. The story I heard (DNRTFA, so I didn't get it there), was that black churches in Florida basically stood on the sidewalk and taught every single black person they could find the laws, so that any black person on the street could quote you section and chapter of the laws, what "voter ID" they actually needed, when to vote, how to vote, so on and so forth. They ended up turning the black population in Florida into the most electorally educated population in the U.S.

Any surprise at all the calls about elitist education? The underclass might start thinking for themselves.


Republicans are strange creatures who exist in a world where they think they're the best people around.  For this illusion to work, the other has to be stupid until they are needed to be a threat.  As such, Republicans wildly underestimate their opponents by nature.  Combine this with their true lack of party stances and meaning (what do they stand for besides being a dumping pot for milquetoast Klan members, again?) and reliance on constant propaganda and you have one hell of a recipe for disaster:  a party that is rabid, illogical, uncompromising, and immensely stupid to the point of comedy.

And you can see with your example, this is why they're empowering minorities of all sorts to take to battle.  The Republicans fail to grasp that they do scare people into action.  Now, it just happens that they scare people to vote against them.
 
2013-04-30 01:23:41 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: And do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: So? Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: So? Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: Simple question: Is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high-school education?


BojanglesPaladin: DeArmondVI: Are you seriously suggesting that someone who works for a living and pays taxes, but doesn't have a HS diploma, has no right to a voice in elections?

No. Where did I say any such thing?


BojanglesPaladin: Do you thinik it is wrong to want a voter to have a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: someonelse: Yes, I saw that you repeatedly asked whether people SHOULD NEED a high school diploma to vote, and then made the bold statement that you thought it would be neat if everyone had one.

Good. You are all caught up. Anything you wanted to add to the conversation?


10/10

Main Entry: broken record Part of Speech: n Definition: someone or something that annoyingly repeats itself, as a vinyl record with a scratch Example: You are starting to sound like a broken record. Etymology: 1940
 
2013-04-30 11:45:31 AM

DeArmondVI: You cannot divorce Buckley's argument from its legal implication, because the entire purpose of Buckley's argument rested on it being a legal matter, not one to simply banter about over tea.


Sure I can. That's what I did. I am not Buckley, nor is anyone here, and I specifically stated that I had no desire to re-hash obsolete arguments made in a different time that the author himself states were in error. I simply used the reference to his statements as a jumping off point to discuss the idea that we should want an educated constituancy.

 

MacWizard: Main Entry: broken record Part of Speech: n Definition: someone or something that annoyingly repeats itself, as a vinyl record with a scratch Example: You are starting to sound like a broken record. Etymology: 1940


I had to keep repeating the exact question specifically because so many people kept trying to 'translate' it into some sort of requirement, where none was stipulated. All that quoting and you missed a key one (ALSO repeated many times since some Farkers like you kept missing it:

BojanglesPaladin: Implementation aside, the question is simply "Is it wrong to want a voter to have a high-school education" ...I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused. I didn't say a single word about denying anyone anything, but nearly every single Farker "filled in the gap" and jumped to some sort of "Jim Crow 2 electric bugaloo" scenario where none was presented.

 
2013-04-30 01:45:19 PM
So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?

YES. good lord. yes.
 
2013-04-30 03:01:06 PM

LookForTheArrow: YES. good lord. yes.


OUt of curiosity, Why would you NOT want a voter to have at least a basic education?
 
2013-04-30 04:11:34 PM
because a citizen is a citizen and no one gets to "bless" them into their citizenship as an adult in this country, least of all, local government.
 
2013-04-30 04:36:42 PM

BojanglesPaladin: LookForTheArrow: YES. good lord. yes.

OUt of curiosity, Why would you NOT want a voter to have at least a basic education?


DeArmondVI: Also, I answered your question previously and you didn't bother to address it. So here it is again:

DeArmondVI: I am of the opinion that our civics education in the country is awful and needs to be improved, and we would all benefit from more people finishing school.

Ultimately, however, the uneducated should have just as many rights as the educated.


I see that you moved your goal post from "high school" to "basic education." Bravo, sir.

Since you clearly have no interest in actually enganging me on the answer I gave to your "concerned" question (thrice now), all I can say is:

10/10
 
2013-04-30 05:39:24 PM

DeArmondVI: Since you clearly have no interest in actually enganging me on the answer I gave to your "concerned" question (thrice now), all I can say is:


Yeah, I can't figure it out.

We all want everyone to have an high school degree, we just don't want it to be a requirement of voting. It seems like he's trying to get someone to say "No, I don't want voters educated" or some shiat like that so then he can go "A-ha!"

Only no one took the bait the way he wanted.

/if you go fishing for tuna, but only get salmon, are you a 10/10 troll?
 
2013-04-30 06:31:56 PM

DeArmondVI: I see that you moved your goal post from "high school" to "basic education."


Not really. I think most people consider a high school education to be basic education. Perhaps you consider grade school to be enough, but generally speaking, a high school diploma or equivelancy is regarded as 'minimum education' nowadays.

DeArmondVI: I am of the opinion that our civics education in the country is awful and needs to be improved, and we would all benefit from more people finishing school. Ultimately, however, the uneducated should have just as many rights as the educated.

---Since you clearly have no interest in actually enganging me on the answer I gave


I apologize, lotta posters on this one. I thought I HAD responded to both of your points when I said:

BojanglesPaladin: Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education. In fact, I would like all Americans period to have that education, so the point would be moot."


BojanglesPaladin: I didn't say a single word about denying anyone anything, but nearly every single Farker "filled in the gap" and jumped to some sort of "Jim Crow 2 electric bugaloo" scenario where none was presented.



I'm sorry if I didn't specifically address you, but I have posted this more than THRICE.
 
2013-04-30 06:37:54 PM

Peki: It seems like he's trying to get someone to say "No, I don't want voters educated" or some shiat like that so then he can go "A-ha!"


Pretty much the exact opposite of that really. Most of this thread was just me repeatedly saying "Nooo.... I am NOT asking for a voting requirement, just saying that surely we can all agree that it is a good and desirable thing for voters to have at least a high school education".

But you just provided an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about:

BojanglesPaladin: I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused...Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education.

 
2013-04-30 09:17:41 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Peki: It seems like he's trying to get someone to say "No, I don't want voters educated" or some shiat like that so then he can go "A-ha!"

Pretty much the exact opposite of that really. Most of this thread was just me repeatedly saying "Nooo.... I am NOT asking for a voting requirement, just saying that surely we can all agree that it is a good and desirable thing for voters to have at least a high school education".

But you just provided an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about:

BojanglesPaladin: I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused...Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education.



and yet I did answer you in a very concise way that belies the concept that school education == responsible citizenry.  In fact, even illiterate folk are pretty damned smart, and are quite aware of "people problems"..

but you dont really care about that, huh? You just want to get a "libs! libs! libs!" to say they want an "educated voter" so you can spooge off about how voter ID will ensure that.

you're a piece of work, ogre

/trolls do it for entertainment, ogres do it to manipulate
 
2013-04-30 09:31:43 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Peki: It seems like he's trying to get someone to say "No, I don't want voters educated" or some shiat like that so then he can go "A-ha!"

Pretty much the exact opposite of that really. Most of this thread was just me repeatedly saying "Nooo.... I am NOT asking for a voting requirement, just saying that surely we can all agree that it is a good and desirable thing for voters to have at least a high school education".

But you just provided an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about:

BojanglesPaladin: I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused...Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education.


That's where you lost it though. You're tying voting to education. Look at these two sentences:

All humans should have a high-school education.
All voters should have a high-school education.

One sounds like a great humanitarian goal, the second sounds like the start to an elitist democracy argument. In truth, they are very similar statements, but the impact, context, and subtext are vastly different.
 
2013-04-30 11:29:32 PM
Is it time for the Alt shift change?

Both of you, I've said what I mean, and I've repeated it many times. Saying I'm saying something different  that you want to hear, or think you hear, or need to hear so you have something to fight about may be entertaining for you, but it boors me. This horse is dead, buried and rotting.

So save the pixels with the baiting and insulting posts. No slap-fighting fit me tonight.
 
Displayed 38 of 238 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report