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.

(Salon)   Noted political wizard Ted Nugent lays out his list of 5 groups who should not be able to vote. Before you snicker, wait until you see the asploding heads of farkers upset that they agree with three of them   (salon.com) divider line 299
    More: Interesting, Ted Nugent, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, vote, paycheck to paycheck, tax exemption  
•       •       •

13039 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jul 2013 at 11:42 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



299 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-06 08:06:48 AM
1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.
 
2013-07-06 08:13:54 AM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.


I'm 3/4 white, does that nullify my vote, or is my Nihonjin side pale enough?

As for Smitty, you do realize that the list was an extrapolation of the welfare motif and not something that Nugetnt meant, right?  He is far less aware than the headline gave him credit for.  It might also be good to add farmers to the list, and agribusiness in general, since the subsidies that they receive pretty much keep the industry floating in cash. As well as teachers and every public university as well...
 
2013-07-06 08:16:33 AM
Subby fails at reading comprehension. The list isn't from Nugent.
 
2013-07-06 08:18:14 AM
How about we stop with this bullshiat anti-freedom, anti-democracy, pro-aristocracy nonsense of trying to revoke people's right to vote?
 
2013-07-06 08:20:22 AM
I will respectfully listen to Ted Nugent when he opines on the most effective methods to get an overweight fortysomething Flying J waitress to give one a mediocre, disinterested handy in the back of a carbon-monoxide-leaking tour bus.

Other than that? STFU
 
2013-07-06 08:20:38 AM
Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.
 
2013-07-06 08:23:24 AM

Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.


Why let a little thing like the raison d'être for their movement get in the way of a gut level reaction from a pants befouling chickenhawk?
 
2013-07-06 08:27:04 AM

hubiestubert: Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.

Why let a little thing like the raison d'être for their movement get in the way of a gut level reaction from a pants befouling chickenhawk?


Based on the conversations I've had, most of them seem to understand taxation without representation to mean they are entitled to have legislators with whom they agree.
 
2013-07-06 08:27:37 AM

Dinki: Subby fails at reading comprehension. The list isn't from Nugent.


Yup. The list is sarcasm/satire.
 
2013-07-06 08:33:23 AM

Aarontology: hubiestubert: Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.

Why let a little thing like the raison d'être for their movement get in the way of a gut level reaction from a pants befouling chickenhawk?

Based on the conversations I've had, most of them seem to understand taxation without representation to mean they are entitled to have legislators with whom they agree.


The TEA Party has always been about Astroturf, and gulling the witless to get excited about races, and throw money at people who pretty much have zero interest in actually doing much other than play corporate money lapdog, and call it folksy and inspired. It is impossible to call a movement "grassroots" when it has an entire news network's support. It is a convenient dodge for folks to bring up the most odious and reactionary policies up, without sullying your hands with them directly, and instead get to use the "some people think that..." argument to push and pull folks into discussing tripe as if it were serious and thought out. Well, to be fair, some of it is well thought out, just not by the folks who hold the signs and cheer wildly to be fleeced...
 
2013-07-06 08:38:59 AM

hubiestubert: The TEA Party has always been about Astroturf, and gulling the witless to get excited about races, and throw money at people who pretty much have zero interest in actually doing much other than play corporate money lapdog, and call it folksy and inspired. It is impossible to call a movement "grassroots" when it has an entire news network's support. It is a convenient dodge for folks to bring up the most odious and reactionary policies up, without sullying your hands with them directly, and instead get to use the "some people think that..." argument to push and pull folks into discussing tripe as if it were serious and thought out. Well, to be fair, some of it is well thought out, just not by the folks who hold the signs and cheer wildly to be fleeced...


Well said.

I will say this though: At least they've stopped trying to pretend that it's a movement made up of people from all political beliefs, social, cultural, religious backgrounds. They seem to have settled well into their role of extreme right social conservatives who advocate centralization of economic and political control into the hands of a wealthy oligarchy.
 
2013-07-06 08:40:56 AM
Headline brought to you by:

menofmind.com
 
2013-07-06 08:42:28 AM

Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.


I guess his line of thinking is that welfare recipients aren't people, so why should they have the right to vote?
 
2013-07-06 08:44:36 AM

Lando Lincoln: I guess his line of thinking is that welfare recipients aren't people, so why should they have the right to vote?


I'd be willing to bet that even if his plan were implemented, he and the politicians who support it would fight tooth and nail in order to prevent people from having their rights restored too.
 
2013-07-06 08:54:36 AM

Aarontology: hubiestubert: Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.

Why let a little thing like the raison d'être for their movement get in the way of a gut level reaction from a pants befouling chickenhawk?

Based on the conversations I've had, most of them seem to understand taxation without representation to mean they are entitled to have legislators with whom they agree.


There was a great photo from a teabagger rally at the PA Capitol building -- a guy dressed as a Hessian mercenary soldier and carrying a "Taxation Without Representation" sign talking...to his elected State Senator.

It could be the official poster for the Festival of Cognitive Dissonance
 
2013-07-06 08:56:02 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: There was a great photo from a teabagger rally at the PA Capitol building -- a guy dressed as a Hessian mercenary soldier and carrying a "Taxation Without Representation" sign talking...to his elected State Senator.


A Hessian? Seriously? hahahahahahha
 
2013-07-06 09:03:39 AM

Aarontology: Mr. Coffee Nerves: There was a great photo from a teabagger rally at the PA Capitol building -- a guy dressed as a Hessian mercenary soldier and carrying a "Taxation Without Representation" sign talking...to his elected State Senator.

A Hessian? Seriously? hahahahahahha


Say what you will about the mercenary ways of Hessian soldiers, dude, but at least it was an ethos.
 
2013-07-06 09:05:06 AM
Men, if the issue is abortion.

Everything else is fair game.
 
2013-07-06 09:11:35 AM

Peki: Men, if the issue is abortion.

Everything else is fair game.


I came out of a womb, so I feel like I have a say in the matter.
 
2013-07-06 09:20:59 AM

Aarontology: Mr. Coffee Nerves: There was a great photo from a teabagger rally at the PA Capitol building -- a guy dressed as a Hessian mercenary soldier and carrying a "Taxation Without Representation" sign talking...to his elected State Senator.

A Hessian? Seriously? hahahahahahha


I'm hoping it was a case of "everyone shows up in blue coats, so I'll look sharp in this green one" but I suspect it may have been "Well, I already fap to 'Soldier of Fortune,' so..."
 
2013-07-06 09:22:01 AM

Lando Lincoln: I came out of a womb, so I feel like I have a say in the matter.


The womb wasn't yours. Feel lucky, not entitled.
 
2013-07-06 09:23:11 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Aarontology: Mr. Coffee Nerves: There was a great photo from a teabagger rally at the PA Capitol building -- a guy dressed as a Hessian mercenary soldier and carrying a "Taxation Without Representation" sign talking...to his elected State Senator.

A Hessian? Seriously? hahahahahahha

I'm hoping it was a case of "everyone shows up in blue coats, so I'll look sharp in this green one" but I suspect it may have been "Well, I already fap to 'Soldier of Fortune,' so..."


Well, you are talking about the movement that gave us this gem:

policygrinder.com

So I doubt many of them passed civics.
 
2013-07-06 09:24:21 AM

jake_lex: So I doubt many of them passed civics.


Or elementary school English.

/what's the highest form of patriotic? poster, I'm looking at you
 
2013-07-06 09:25:40 AM

Lando Lincoln: Peki: Men, if the issue is abortion.

Everything else is fair game.

I came out of a womb, so I feel like I have a say in the matter.


You don't get a say until you have cum into a womb.
 
2013-07-06 09:26:46 AM

grokca: You don't get a say until you have cum into a womb.


Still doesn't, even then. Not his womb.

/if you have a good relationship, then the woman should seek your advice and opinion. But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.
 
2013-07-06 09:39:59 AM
I think it was Boss Tweed that said "I don't care who does the voting, as long as I get to do the nominating."
 
2013-07-06 09:44:01 AM
If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.


Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.
 
2013-07-06 09:50:28 AM
27 comments in and I don't see any "heads asploding," subs. Maybe you misread us or the article?
 
2013-07-06 10:00:00 AM
Nugent's a dumbass, and so are a lot of US citizens, but they should all still get to vote
 
2013-07-06 10:10:43 AM

Lando Lincoln: It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy male land owners have a right to vote.


FIFY. It seems like they want the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments to go away.
 
2013-07-06 10:30:30 AM

Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.


Let's also point you, like subby, fails at reading comprehension.
 
2013-07-06 10:38:52 AM

Speaker2Animals: Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.

Let's also point you, like subby, fails at reading comprehension.


As long as these people he's biatching about are paying one penny in taxes, whether it's from sales, gas, property, income, Social Security, Medicare, or any of the other myriad taxes and fees that are imposed by governments, the revocation of their right to vote puts them under a system of taxation without representation.
 
2013-07-06 10:43:06 AM
Please please, pretty please, Ted run for President. I have lots of popcorn.
 
2013-07-06 10:46:57 AM
Why isn't that asshole dead yet?
 
2013-07-06 10:55:42 AM

Aarontology: Mr. Coffee Nerves: There was a great photo from a teabagger rally at the PA Capitol building -- a guy dressed as a Hessian mercenary soldier and carrying a "Taxation Without Representation" sign talking...to his elected State Senator.

A Hessian? Seriously? hahahahahahha


Yep.  This guy:

farm4.staticflickr.com

media3.washingtonpost.com

I'm guessing he was trying to be one of Vermont's Green Mountain Rangers, but they don't have the red trim on the button seams down the middle of the jacket, just the collar and cuffs.

www.srcalifornia.com

The German Field Jäger Corps of Hesse-Cassel, employed as mercenaries by the British Crown, 1776-1783:

img.fark.net
 
2013-07-06 10:57:35 AM

Aarontology: Speaker2Animals: Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.

Let's also point you, like subby, fails at reading comprehension.

As long as these people he's biatching about are paying one penny in taxes, whether it's from sales, gas, property, income, Social Security, Medicare, or any of the other myriad taxes and fees that are imposed by governments, the revocation of their right to vote puts them under a system of taxation without representation.


He had nothing to do with that list of five groups. It's called "satire." Read again.
 
2013-07-06 11:02:43 AM

Speaker2Animals: He had nothing to do with that list of five groups. It's called "satire." Read again.


I'm referring to the things Nugent actually said, not the list.

While the people he talks about are on the path to self sufficiency that he wants, they'll be unable to vote, while being forced to pay taxes. Ergo, a system of taxation without representation.

Unless he wishes to exempt them from any and all taxation during the period, but I'm going to guess he doesn't.
 
2013-07-06 11:10:44 AM

Sgt Otter: Yep. This guy:


I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the staggering ignorance of history.
 
2013-07-06 11:24:06 AM
So basically, only the rich, the renting class, and the welfare families will be allowed to vote?
 
2013-07-06 11:27:07 AM
1. Ted Nugent
2. Ted Nugent's family
3. People who like Ted Nugent
4. The families of people who like Ted Nugent
5. Ted Nugent
 
2013-07-06 11:33:00 AM
Cat-scratch fever

(don-dan-DEN)
 
2013-07-06 11:34:25 AM

Speaker2Animals: Aarontology: Speaker2Animals: Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.

Let's also point you, like subby, fails at reading comprehension.

As long as these people he's biatching about are paying one penny in taxes, whether it's from sales, gas, property, income, Social Security, Medicare, or any of the other myriad taxes and fees that are imposed by governments, the revocation of their right to vote puts them under a system of taxation without representation.

He had nothing to do with that list of five groups. It's called "satire." Read again.




Ah, we're going with the "A right-winger got caught saying something racist, sexist, homophobic, or just plain stupid, so let's say it's 'satire' the libs don't get" defense here.
 
2013-07-06 11:36:47 AM

Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.


This may surprise you, but if I'm pregnant, and decide to keep the kid, and you give up all parental rights, yeah, I'm okay with not making the guy pay child support for it.

/however, just like a girl shouldn't get drunk at a party by herself, a guy ought to always keep things under wraps, so to speak. Don't let yourself get into the situation in the first place.
 
2013-07-06 11:46:00 AM
How about we just stop pretending that Ted Nugent is relevant.
 
2013-07-06 11:48:20 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why isn't that asshole dead yet?


Or in prison like he promised.
 
2013-07-06 11:50:05 AM
i1284.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-06 11:52:35 AM

Fart_Machine: How about we just stop pretending that Ted Nugent is relevant.


In the world of politics of course

But one cannot deny his relevancy in the history of music
 
2013-07-06 11:52:50 AM
The main gripe I have with the Tea Party is that Powdered Wigs are cool, I would totally rock one, but everyone will think I'm a Teaheadist now. Damn them.
 
2013-07-06 11:53:33 AM
Can we get some of the "small government conservatives" from the "founding fathers quotes" thread to come in here saying how this guy, or Sarah Palin, or Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum, or Ted Cruz...don't represent them?

Don't like big government political parties that are designed to keep the ignorant motivated and the wealthy in power?  Too bad, you're in one.
 
2013-07-06 11:53:40 AM

jake_lex: Speaker2Animals: Aarontology: Speaker2Animals: Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.

Let's also point you, like subby, fails at reading comprehension.

As long as these people he's biatching about are paying one penny in taxes, whether it's from sales, gas, property, income, Social Security, Medicare, or any of the other myriad taxes and fees that are imposed by governments, the revocation of their right to vote puts them under a system of taxation without representation.

He had nothing to do with that list of five groups. It's called "satire." Read again.

Ah, we're going with the "A right-winger got caught saying something racist, sexist, homophobic, or just plain stupid, so let's say it's 'satire' the libs don't get" defense here.


No we're going with the "Nugent said people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote, and the author of the column satirically extrapolated that out to 5 other groups" statement .
 
2013-07-06 11:54:59 AM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.


FTFM.

Simple:  Anyone under 18 may take a competency test that's similar to the civics quiz immigrants take to become naturalized. If they pass, they gain the right to vote.  You automatically gain it when you turn 18, as normal, but if a kid is competent, they can vote.
 
2013-07-06 11:55:20 AM
Salon.com suuuuuuuuuuuucks
 
2013-07-06 11:57:48 AM
Nuget, eh? Isn't he dead or in jail or something?
 
2013-07-06 11:57:48 AM

hubiestubert: Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.

I'm 3/4 white, does that nullify my vote, or is my Nihonjin side pale enough?

As for Smitty, you do realize that the list was an extrapolation of the welfare motif and not something that Nugetnt meant, right?  He is far less aware than the headline gave him credit for.  It might also be good to add farmers to the list, and agribusiness in general, since the subsidies that they receive pretty much keep the industry floating in cash. As well as teachers and every public university as well...


3/4 is not even close to passing the purity laws of the past. You would be classified as a non-Voter.
 
2013-07-06 12:00:31 PM

Mawson of the Antarctic: The main gripe I have with the Tea Party is that Powdered Wigs are cool, I would totally rock one, but everyone will think I'm a Teaheadist now. Damn them.


Bastards ruined Gadsden flags and tricorne hats, too.
 
2013-07-06 12:00:36 PM
At least both sides can agree they are naive enough to believe their vote counts.
 
2013-07-06 12:02:13 PM
makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers
 
2013-07-06 12:03:53 PM

bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers


You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?
 
2013-07-06 12:04:14 PM
6. Illiterates, like Subby.
 
2013-07-06 12:04:27 PM
So basically anyone who might potentially benefit from government should be excluded from participating in government?

It makes as much sense as anything else Nugent says.
 
2013-07-06 12:05:44 PM

bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers


Given that those "makers" would be out of business without the "takers" paying for their stuff you might want to think your plan though a bit more.
 
2013-07-06 12:07:51 PM
Nugent's words:  Let's also stop the insanity by suspending the right to vote of any American who is on welfare. Once they get off welfare and are self-sustaining, they get their right to vote restored. No American on welfare should have the right to vote for tax increases on those Americans who are working and paying taxes to support them. That's insane.

So, dickless here is advocating for completely disenfranchising the poor.

Can we please, please, please stop posting the nonsense of a pedophile, pants-shiatting draft dodger?
 
2013-07-06 12:09:16 PM
Actually I agree with Nugent, on two conditions:

1. No one, NO ONE, can be turned down for Welfare. Young, old, male, female, able-bodied, disabled, you want to be on the public teat, you got it, for as long as you want it, no strings attached (except see below),
2. You have to go to school. Eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year. I don't care what you study, it can be Basketweaving or Chemistry of Meth Making, but you have to be in school.

At any time an individual may withdraw from Welfare, for a minimum of one year, at which point his voting rights will be restored. However, I believe that Item 2 will permanently clear the welfare rolls of people over 30 within ten years.
 
2013-07-06 12:09:35 PM
Are they American citizens?

Yes?

Then farking LET THEM VOTE.
 
2013-07-06 12:09:36 PM
Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.
 
2013-07-06 12:10:14 PM

SN1987a goes boom: So, dickless here is advocating for completely disenfranchising the poor.


I wonder if he thinks they should take their guns away too.
 
2013-07-06 12:10:47 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.


A bit fat THIS.
 
2013-07-06 12:11:04 PM
I agree with TN.  Active duty military accepting welfare should not be allowed to vote.
 
2013-07-06 12:11:13 PM
I don't think any of those groups he lists should be prevented from voting.

Lionel Mandrake: 1. Ted Nugent
2. Ted Nugent's family
3. People who like Ted Nugent
4. The families of people who like Ted Nugent
5. Ted Nugent


There's a list I can support, though.
 
2013-07-06 12:12:18 PM

Speaker2Animals: Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.

Let's also point you, like subby, fails at reading comprehension.


This is what Ted Nugent said:

"Let's also stop the insanity by suspending the right to vote of any American who is on welfare. Once they get off welfare and are self-sustaining, they get their right to vote restored. No American on welfare should have the right to vote for tax increases on those Americans who are working and paying taxes to support them. That's insane."

The article is taking what he said to the logical conclusion.
 
2013-07-06 12:13:09 PM

Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.


You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.
 
2013-07-06 12:18:18 PM

Therion: Mawson of the Antarctic: The main gripe I have with the Tea Party is that Powdered Wigs are cool, I would totally rock one, but everyone will think I'm a Teaheadist now. Damn them.

Bastards ruined Gadsden flags and tricorne hats, too.


I thought they made the flag even better

0.tqn.com
 
2013-07-06 12:18:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 27 comments in and I don't see any "heads asploding," subs. Maybe you misread us or the article?


Also could be this is old news from December of 2012.
 
2013-07-06 12:18:34 PM

Fart_Machine: SN1987a goes boom: So, dickless here is advocating for completely disenfranchising the poor.

I wonder if he thinks they should take their guns away too.


Came here to say that.

What's his take on their right to bear arms? I'm sure he's fine with that right.
 
2013-07-06 12:19:10 PM

clambam: Actually I agree with Nugent, on two conditions:

1. No one, NO ONE, can be turned down for Welfare. Young, old, male, female, able-bodied, disabled, you want to be on the public teat, you got it, for as long as you want it, no strings attached (except see below),
2. You have to go to school. Eight hours a day, five days a week, fifty weeks a year. I don't care what you study, it can be Basketweaving or Chemistry of Meth Making, but you have to be in school.

At any time an individual may withdraw from Welfare, for a minimum of one year, at which point his voting rights will be restored. However, I believe that Item 2 will permanently clear the welfare rolls of people over 30 within ten years.


I disagree with your second point. There is already a problem of people going to school and not finding employment upon graduating.  A massive glut of people suddenly going to school *may* make the situation worse, not to mention the headaches of trying to fund these people going to school. I would suggest re-enstating the Civilian Conservation Corps to rebuild and update our infrastructure.
 
2013-07-06 12:19:33 PM

cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?



you may want what they do
but you cant eat it wear it or take it home with you
they produce nothing
you might want thier service but a hooker provides service too
thats not a product
cops might reduce loss of a product so they might claim a share of that
teachers might (sometimes somewhere) train people to be able to be productive (but ill leave it open how often that happens)
thats not a product either
side issue   how many non productive people (cops, teachers, hair-dressers, politicians, et al ) can be supported by those who produce something
 
2013-07-06 12:19:45 PM
 Subby forgot to take into consideration that "the nuge" is a flaming hypocrite. They're assuming that he applies that standard to everyone. He doesn't. He's thinking about poor people who need assistance. When it comes to the other groups mentioned in the article he would simply throw up a wall of word salad nonsense while insisting that giving money to corporations, churches, and  "real merican institutions" is completely different.  I knew there was something wrong when the headline implied that Ted was giving a nuanced thought out multidimensional argument.
 
2013-07-06 12:22:36 PM
The Amboy Dukes was a pretty good band.
 
2013-07-06 12:22:44 PM

cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.


Ahhh....good to see you're back to being a shill.
 
2013-07-06 12:23:20 PM
St. Jude's Hospital system:  currently treating thousands of kids with cancer

Ted Nugent:  breathing, alive and not suffering horribly:  does not have cancer.

And no one will ever be able to convince me there is a God.

This guy is literally a pants-shiatting coward, so it's no wonder he's a revered hero of the Right.  You know, cause he pisses off the libs.
 
2013-07-06 12:23:50 PM

cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.


Why is it when you guys want to defend yourselves from charges of racism and sexism you have to dig back a hundred years or more to find something worth bragging about? "Sure we want to rape you with a plastic dildo if you dare to ask for an abortion, but look how awesome we were in 1919! And, yeah, of course we want to disenfranchise blacks and Latinos now, but wasn't what we did in 1865 totally awesome? Where's your sense of gratitude?" In point of fact the repub Party has done nothing of value to the country since Teddy Roosevelt's day. At best caretaker repub presidents like Eisenhower or Bush I didn't make things worse. Go away. No one will miss you.
 
2013-07-06 12:29:40 PM
Nobody on welfare should vote?  So nobody who collects Social Security or makes use of Medicare?

Well, there goes the GOP...
 
2013-07-06 12:30:43 PM
I noticed that loud mouthed has-beens with guitars are not on the list. A coincidence, I'm sure.
 
2013-07-06 12:30:56 PM

shamanwest: Ahhh....good to see you're back to being a shill.


... back?
 
2013-07-06 12:31:25 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: There was a great photo from a teabagger rally at the PA Capitol building -- a guy dressed as a Hessian mercenary soldier and carrying a "Taxation Without Representation" sign talking...to his elected State Senator.

It could be the official poster for the Festival of Cognitive Dissonance



I'm not surprised. My guess is he's just a reenactor.

I took my kids to this one annual local event a few times when they were younger, and noticed a couple things --

For someone with no family connection to the Revolutionary War, and German immigrant roots, joining a Hessian group is an attractive proposition. (I'd seriously consider joining it myself if I was looking for exactly one hobby that would monopolize every minute of my free time. It looks like a lot of fun in a demanding sort of way.)

And the 'hobby politics' was very strong with everyone I talked to in a really bizarre fashion that I hadn't noticed when my dad took me to the same events 35 years earlier. Back then, all the reenactors were simply history buffs, many of whom enjoyed making and firing the really cool replica muzzle-loaders among other things. The guns were tools. Today, many of the reenactors I spoke with were almost cultishly devoted to their guns, viewing their weapons as quite literally sacred objects. Reenacting wasn't so much a celebration of the birth of our nation and all of our freedoms as it was a celebration of gun rights ... at least to the subset of reenactors who saw fit to walk up to me and volunteer their opinions about guns.
 
2013-07-06 12:33:45 PM

shamanwest: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Ahhh....good to see you're back to being a shill.


Are you serious?

You cherry-picked what I said to fit your preconceived notions.

I was saying that the GOP has NEVER been anti-women voting. Look at the full context of my post. You only cared about my first statement.
 
2013-07-06 12:33:50 PM
Does the list include draft-dodging chickenhawk p*ssies like Ted Nugent?
 
2013-07-06 12:34:41 PM

cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.


Republicans of 100-ish years ago  =\=  Republicans today.
 
2013-07-06 12:37:09 PM

clambam: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Why is it when you guys want to defend yourselves from charges of racism and sexism you have to dig back a hundred years or more to find something worth bragging about? "Sure we want to rape you with a plastic dildo if you dare to ask for an abortion, but look how awesome we were in 1919! And, yeah, of course we want to disenfranchise blacks and Latinos now, but wasn't what we did in 1865 totally awesome? Where's your sense of gratitude?" In point of fact the repub Party has done nothing of value to the country since Teddy Roosevelt's day. At best caretaker repub presidents like Eisenhower or Bush I didn't make things worse. Go away. No one will miss you.


I would say that Bush 1 is the only modern Republican who hasn't totally wrecked the country. Eisenhower was a democrat recruited by the GOP to give political life support to Nixon.
 
2013-07-06 12:37:09 PM

toastmonkey42: I disagree with your second point. There is already a problem of people going to school and not finding employment upon graduating.  A massive glut of people suddenly going to school *may* make the situation worse, not to mention the headaches of trying to fund these people going to school. I would suggest re-enstating the Civilian Conservation Corps to rebuild and update our infrastructure.


There's a bigger problem of people dropping out of high school and not being able to do anything about it years later when they realize what a huge mistake they've made. Let's get some 20-somethings their GEDs and maybe two years of community college and then we'll worry about overqualified philosophy majors.
 
2013-07-06 12:39:42 PM

cman: Are you serious?


You have to earn the right to ask this question without receiving immediate peals of laughter, Mr. I Slept Through the Southern Strategy Section of the Color-My-Lunch Menu at Cracker Barrel.
 
2013-07-06 12:41:10 PM

dericwater: I would say that Bush 1 is the only modern Republican who hasn't totally wrecked the country. Eisenhower was a democrat recruited by the GOP to give political life support to Nixon.


Stop it.
 
2013-07-06 12:43:31 PM
>> lays out his list of 5 groups who should not be able to vote

One more......

#6 - Submitters who do not read and comprehend the article and instead focus on the shiny, pretty numbers in a list.
 
2013-07-06 12:43:44 PM

thamike: cman: Are you serious?

You have to earn the right to ask this question without receiving immediate peals of laughter, Mr. I Slept Through the Southern Strategy Section of the Color-My-Lunch Menu at Cracker Barrel.


The Southern Strategy does not exist to anyone on the right these days.  It never happened. The GOP has always been the party of freedom.  Always.

We have always been at war blah blah blah...
 
2013-07-06 12:44:23 PM

thamike: cman: Are you serious?

You have to earn the right to ask this question without receiving immediate peals of laughter, Mr. I Slept Through the Southern Strategy Section of the Color-My-Lunch Menu at Cracker Barrel.


Nice deflection. NHL might call you.
 
2013-07-06 12:45:01 PM

cman: thamike: cman: Are you serious?

You have to earn the right to ask this question without receiving immediate peals of laughter, Mr. I Slept Through the Southern Strategy Section of the Color-My-Lunch Menu at Cracker Barrel.

Nice deflection. NHL might call you.


Ok.
 
2013-07-06 12:45:53 PM

cman: Nice deflection.


Lame projection.
 
2013-07-06 12:46:56 PM

Peki: grokca: You don't get a say until you have cum into a womb.

Still doesn't, even then. Not his womb.

/if you have a good relationship, then the woman should seek your advice and opinion. But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.


Yup. This conversation is literally between a woman and her doctor. Only she decides who else to let in.
 
2013-07-06 12:47:04 PM
Why are people surprised to find that Tea Tards believe this? In the run up to the 2012 election there were plenty of prominent Tea Tards saying that only property and business owners should be allowed to vote because they are the only ones who have a stake in the community.
 
2013-07-06 12:47:44 PM

Mangoose: man who wants an abortion


Should probably have just kept it in his pants.
 
2013-07-06 12:47:46 PM
These folks should be able to vote:

* Felons - Not just ex-felons, but those in prison as well. Who has a greater interest in laws & justice than those who have been directly impacted by it. In some cases unfairly. (with one exception, outlined below)

* Minors - If you're interested enough to want to vote, perhaps even as young as 13, you should be able to (Girls starting at 12 because they mature faster, of course). Policies enacted now will impact the lives of seniors for only a few years, but will impact the lives of young people for half a century or more. I think their interests should be key. Also: Mandatory voting for 16-18 year olds in school. Make it a requirement to graduate. If they get into the habit maybe more will continue to do so later.

* Everyone in the country. Citizens, non-citizens, undocumented folks. Everyone, no exceptions. None of this crazy "papers please". Laws impact everyone, not just those who have been here a long time, or jumped through the hoops to get the citizen prize.

Who should not be able to vote (or contribute to campaigns):

* Corporations - Should be obvious by now why this is a bad idea

* Those who have been out of the country for a year or more. This is the corollary to my "everyone in the country gets to vote". If you leave, too bad.

* Those convicted of high treason or subverting the constitution. Of course most legislators since 9/11 would fall into this category, since they passed such blatantly unconstitutional laws including the "Patriot act". Anyone barred from voting for this reason should also of course be barred from running for office.

/Its Saturday. Just let me keep living my Liberal fantasy here, ok?
 
2013-07-06 12:48:12 PM
I'll go one worse. Voting should be compulsory.

"Oh, the infrastructure couldn't handle that."

Good. Now you have a reason to make your voting infrastructure good.

"Many people will vote without being informed."

You think they don't know? In the 2012 election, the majority of likely Republican voters thought Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, in Ohio. That's mental.

"It's a form of tyranny."

God, Americans and their love of calling basic interactions with society tyranny. Seatbelts are tyranny, road laws are tyranny. You don't get to spend that nickel, because you were busy blowing it  when suggesting you guys stop hogging all the IPs was a form of tyranny.

"If you do this, you'll have a lot of people voting who weren't before, and who's to say we want them?"

You want them to have to vote. If they have to vote, there will be at least one week every two years where they have to give a shiat about politics, and then, microcosmically, you will start them towards paying attention.

"It'll never work."

Yes, it won't work, because this is America, the home of the free and the land of the brave, where there is no system so awful, so nonfunctional and so downright deleritous to governance, liberty and human dignity, that they won't resist maintaining it as it is forever, because Founders And Freedom And Also.

/blah blah blah Talen
//nobody cares
///Australian, not even drunk
 
2013-07-06 12:49:18 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Mangoose: man who wants an abortion

Should probably have just kept it in his pants.


What if she literally tied me down and (because I enjoy that sort of thing) got me off...
 
2013-07-06 12:50:24 PM
Salon made those other five up.
 
2013-07-06 12:52:18 PM

cman: Fart_Machine: How about we just stop pretending that Ted Nugent is relevant.

In the world of politics of course

But one cannot deny his relevancy in the history of music


I can deny it. His music was crap. I will concede he had one decent song, but given one out of the piles of shiat, he was still shiat.
 
2013-07-06 12:52:18 PM

CokeBear: The My Little Pony Killer: Mangoose: man who wants an abortion

Should probably have just kept it in his pants.

What if she literally tied me down and (because I enjoy that sort of thing) got me off...


Safety word?
 
2013-07-06 12:53:03 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18



3) Members of the Westboro Baptist Church
 
2013-07-06 12:55:03 PM
Play stranglehold and STFU, ted.
 
2013-07-06 12:55:10 PM
I wouldn't be opposed to removing the right to vote from churchgoers.  I wouldn't advocate for it, but I think we'd be better off.
 
2013-07-06 12:55:38 PM
People talk about repealing the mortgage interest deduction, but I wonder about the possibility of taking the opposite approach.

Instead of applying to all mortgage interest, a person could instead deduct the net decrease in any one debt that he owes, OR instead deduct the rent payments on his or her own place of residence.

Note I specifically mention "net decrease" here, not payments. This is to prevent a loophole whereby someone runs huge amounts of money through a credit card and then pays it off immediately, resulting in little change to the person's finances but a potentially huge deduction (consider the Sacagewea-dollar frequent-flyer miles scheme for an example of how someone might do that). But you could use a credit card for this deduction, provided that you are actually paying the card down.

With housing being the largest expense of most households in the US nowadays, how much would most families be helped if that particular expense suddenly became tax-free? For that matter, how many people would get a much-needed boost toward getting out of debt?
 
2013-07-06 12:56:52 PM
lunatic draft-dodging pedofile moron.  We lose good men every year and this fark won't roll over and die.  There is no justice in the world.
 
2013-07-06 12:59:09 PM

Aarontology: How about we stop with this bullshiat anti-freedom, anti-democracy, pro-aristocracy nonsense of trying to revoke people's right to vote?


Because then Republicans would be a minority party for decades.
 
2013-07-06 01:01:00 PM

yelmrog: thamike: cman: Are you serious?

You have to earn the right to ask this question without receiving immediate peals of laughter, Mr. I Slept Through the Southern Strategy Section of the Color-My-Lunch Menu at Cracker Barrel.

The Southern Strategy does not exist to anyone on the right these days.  It never happened. The GOP has always been the party of freedom.  Always.

We have always been at war blah blah blah...


www.sciway.net

"Hello, friends, Sen. Strom Thurmond here.  If you're not familiar with me, I ran in 1948 as the candidate for The Segregation Party, and I even frequently peppered my stump speeches with the N-Bomb.  Even though I hated Truman for integrating the U.S. Army, I ran for Senate as a Democrat.  Now, in 1964, Democratic President LBJ, working with a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats in Congress, passed the Civil Rights Act.  I tried to filibuster that damn thing for a record-setting 24 hours, but eventually even my racist-ass got tired.

Shortly after, I switched my party affiliation to Republican.  Which was, I assure you, is nothing more than a coincidence.  Honest, smelly, red-skin, drunk-off-their-heathen-ass Injun."
 
2013-07-06 01:01:03 PM
1) People who aren't me.
 
2013-07-06 01:01:08 PM

Peki: Men, if the issue is abortion.

Everything else is fair game.


Leaving the actual abortion debate out of it, what's the rationale for this line of thinking?  It's cool to sacrifice the very founding principles of democracy and equality for an issue you feel really really really strongly about?
 
2013-07-06 01:02:40 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: Aarontology: How about we stop with this bullshiat anti-freedom, anti-democracy, pro-aristocracy nonsense of trying to revoke people's right to vote?

Because then Republicans would be a minority party for decades.


That ship sailed a long time ago.  The GOP knows it can't win without cheating.
 
2013-07-06 01:03:31 PM

phaseolus: Mr. Coffee Nerves: There was a great photo from a teabagger rally at the PA Capitol building -- a guy dressed as a Hessian mercenary soldier and carrying a "Taxation Without Representation" sign talking...to his elected State Senator.

It could be the official poster for the Festival of Cognitive Dissonance


I'm not surprised. My guess is he's just a reenactor.

I took my kids to this one annual local event a few times when they were younger, and noticed a couple things --

For someone with no family connection to the Revolutionary War, and German immigrant roots, joining a Hessian group is an attractive proposition. (I'd seriously consider joining it myself if I was looking for exactly one hobby that would monopolize every minute of my free time. It looks like a lot of fun in a demanding sort of way.)

And the 'hobby politics' was very strong with everyone I talked to in a really bizarre fashion that I hadn't noticed when my dad took me to the same events 35 years earlier. Back then, all the reenactors were simply history buffs, many of whom enjoyed making and firing the really cool replica muzzle-loaders among other things. The guns were tools. Today, many of the reenactors I spoke with were almost cultishly devoted to their guns, viewing their weapons as quite literally sacred objects. Reenacting wasn't so much a celebration of the birth of our nation and all of our freedoms as it was a celebration of gun rights ... at least to the subset of reenactors who saw fit to walk up to me and volunteer their opinions about guns.


Whoa pard, many reenactors ARE history buffs and discuss no modern politics. Others find guns interesting. Look on FB, try a search using 18th Century.
 
2013-07-06 01:05:13 PM

CokeBear: /Its Saturday. Just let me keep living my Liberal fantasy here, ok?


Jimmy Carter just shat himself.

/that may or may not be your fault.
 
2013-07-06 01:06:30 PM
I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.

That said, I'd love to see the Nuge's reaction to the idea that only military service guarantees citizenship to vote.

Cheers

//Do you want to know more?
//I think Teddy would lose the vote twice in this case.
 
2013-07-06 01:08:34 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.


I feel the same way, on a much more give or take level, about gun ownership.
 
2013-07-06 01:10:29 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.



Why do you want to deny conservatives the right to vote?
 
2013-07-06 01:14:11 PM

Sgt Otter: "Hello, friends, Sen. Strom Thurmond here.  If you're not familiar with me, I ran in 1948 as the candidate for The Segregation Party, and I even frequently peppered my stump speeches with the N-Bomb.  Even though I hated Truman for integrating the U.S. Army, I ran for Senate as a Democrat.  Now, in 1964, Democratic President LBJ, working with a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats in Congress, passed the Civil Rights Act.  I tried to filibuster that damn thing for a record-setting 24 hours, but eventually even my racist-ass got tired.

Shortly after, I switched my party affiliation to Republican.  Which was, I assure you, is nothing more than a coincidence.  Honest, smelly, red-skin, drunk-off-their-heathen-ass Injun."


I have no idea why, but I read that in Troy McClure's voice.
 
2013-07-06 01:14:47 PM

cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?


Republicans do.
 
2013-07-06 01:20:02 PM

thamike: Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.

I feel the same way, on a much more give or take level, about gun ownership.


I have a very different opinion on that one.  I'm Canadian, we don't have an explicit right to keep and bear arms and I'm good with it.  Seems to have worked out for us.  You guys seem mostly comfortable with where you're at, so please carry-on.

Not completely sure why gun rights comments so commonly show up in any thread related to other rights.

Cheers.
 
2013-07-06 01:22:53 PM
Who cares what the fark Ted says.  Oh yeah, Salon and Mother Jones and Huffpo.  Carry on.
 
2013-07-06 01:23:00 PM

CokeBear: Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.


Why do you want to deny conservatives Palin Americans the right to vote?


I like this question better.  I don't actually want to deny them the vote, I just wanted the cheap shot at the Nuge.  I have a personal belief that the purpose of life on this planet is to entertain me.  You guys are doing an admirable job, but sometimes a bit of spice is all the difference.

Cheers.
 
2013-07-06 01:23:35 PM

thamike: Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.

I feel the same way, on a much more give or take level, about gun ownership.


Why do you equate the fundamental exercise of democracy with owning deadly weapons?
 
2013-07-06 01:23:58 PM
And if we re-define Welfare to mean "people who eat food" then Nugent thinks democracy is a sham!
 
2013-07-06 01:24:05 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: thamike: Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.

I feel the same way, on a much more give or take level, about gun ownership.

I have a very different opinion on that one.  I'm Canadian, we don't have an explicit right to keep and bear arms and I'm good with it.  Seems to have worked out for us.  You guys seem mostly comfortable with where you're at, so please carry-on.

Not completely sure why gun rights comments so commonly show up in any thread related to other rights.

Cheers.


Its about political polarization.

We will use any opportunity we can to bash the other side politically. The conversation could be about liposuction and you bet your ass someone will use it to bash someone else.
 
2013-07-06 01:25:31 PM

cman: Brian_of_Nazareth: thamike: Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.

I feel the same way, on a much more give or take level, about gun ownership.

I have a very different opinion on that one.  I'm Canadian, we don't have an explicit right to keep and bear arms and I'm good with it.  Seems to have worked out for us.  You guys seem mostly comfortable with where you're at, so please carry-on.

Not completely sure why gun rights comments so commonly show up in any thread related to other rights.

Cheers.

Its about political polarization.

We will use any opportunity we can to bash the other side politically. The conversation could be about liposuction and you bet your ass someone will use it to bash someone else.


Will liposuction be covered under Obummercare?

/did I do that right?
 
2013-07-06 01:26:23 PM

dericwater: clambam: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Why is it when you guys want to defend yourselves from charges of racism and sexism you have to dig back a hundred years or more to find something worth bragging about? "Sure we want to rape you with a plastic dildo if you dare to ask for an abortion, but look how awesome we were in 1919! And, yeah, of course we want to disenfranchise blacks and Latinos now, but wasn't what we did in 1865 totally awesome? Where's your sense of gratitude?" In point of fact the repub Party has done nothing of value to the country since Teddy Roosevelt's day. At best caretaker repub presidents like Eisenhower or Bush I didn't make things worse. Go away. No one will miss you.

I would say that Bush 1 is the only modern Republican who hasn't totally wrecked the country. Eisenhower was a democrat recruited by the GOP to give political life support to Nixon.


Not quite - Eisenhower was in a sense drafted. Members of both political parties sought him out, because Douglas MacArthur was considering a political career. You want to talk about a disaster in the making...
 
2013-07-06 01:26:35 PM

FitzShivering: cman: Brian_of_Nazareth: thamike: Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.

I feel the same way, on a much more give or take level, about gun ownership.

I have a very different opinion on that one.  I'm Canadian, we don't have an explicit right to keep and bear arms and I'm good with it.  Seems to have worked out for us.  You guys seem mostly comfortable with where you're at, so please carry-on.

Not completely sure why gun rights comments so commonly show up in any thread related to other rights.

Cheers.

Its about political polarization.

We will use any opportunity we can to bash the other side politically. The conversation could be about liposuction and you bet your ass someone will use it to bash someone else.

Will liposuction be covered under Obummercare?

/did I do that right?


Indeed you did. I award you 1 internet
 
2013-07-06 01:29:16 PM

CokeBear: * Minors - If you're interested enough to want to vote, perhaps even as young as 13, you should be able to (Girls starting at 12 because they mature faster, of course). Policies enacted now will impact the lives of seniors for only a few years, but will impact the lives of young people for half a century or more. I think their interests should be key. Also: Mandatory voting for 16-18 year olds in school. Make it a requirement to graduate. If they get into the habit maybe more will continue to do so later.


You apparently don't know any minors, or else you would know why this is a terrible idea. Children make bad decisions. It's why they are under the legal protection of adults, unless in the extremely rare instance they can legally demonstrate that it isn't needed, and why that anyone under 18 can not be legally bound by a contract. Moreover, speaking someone who grew up in a fundie household, their politics and worldviews are dominated by those of their parents, and so are unable to objectively create their own opinions for the most part until they can get real, unprotected experience with the world at large.

/have no issue with the others you listed.
 
2013-07-06 01:29:25 PM

cman: Brian_of_Nazareth: thamike: Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.

I feel the same way, on a much more give or take level, about gun ownership.

I have a very different opinion on that one.  I'm Canadian, we don't have an explicit right to keep and bear arms and I'm good with it.  Seems to have worked out for us.  You guys seem mostly comfortable with where you're at, so please carry-on.

Not completely sure why gun rights comments so commonly show up in any thread related to other rights.

Cheers.

Its about political polarization.

We will use any opportunity we can to bash the other side politically. The conversation could be about liposuction and you bet your ass someone will use it to bash someone else.


Quite true, though I would add there's probably more than one reason.

The comment was a (too?) subtle dig at thamike.  I'm the middle-aged stoned guy with ADD but he's the one having trouble staying on topic.

Cheers.
 
2013-07-06 01:30:37 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: I have a very different opinion on that one. I'm Canadian, we don't have an explicit right to keep and bear arms and I'm good with it. Seems to have worked out for us. You guys seem mostly comfortable with where you're at, so please carry-on.


I'm honestly fine either way.  I have hope for sanity, yet I accept that my country is inherently Yosemite Sam-like...In most ways.

Brian_of_Nazareth: Not completely sure why gun rights comments so commonly show up in any thread related to other rights.


It's a hot topic, like abortion and gay rights.  In fact, I can't wait to get my General Dynamics Homobortion phased plasma rifle with a 40 watt range.
 
2013-07-06 01:31:20 PM

scumshine: phaseolus: Mr. Coffee Nerves: There was a great photo from a teabagger rally at the PA Capitol building -- a guy dressed as a Hessian mercenary soldier and carrying a "Taxation Without Representation" sign talking...to his elected State Senator.

It could be the official poster for the Festival of Cognitive Dissonance


I'm not surprised. My guess is he's just a reenactor.

I took my kids to this one annual local event a few times when they were younger, and noticed a couple things --

For someone with no family connection to the Revolutionary War, and German immigrant roots, joining a Hessian group is an attractive proposition. (I'd seriously consider joining it myself if I was looking for exactly one hobby that would monopolize every minute of my free time. It looks like a lot of fun in a demanding sort of way.)

And the 'hobby politics' was very strong with everyone I talked to in a really bizarre fashion that I hadn't noticed when my dad took me to the same events 35 years earlier. Back then, all the reenactors were simply history buffs, many of whom enjoyed making and firing the really cool replica muzzle-loaders among other things. The guns were tools. Today, many of the reenactors I spoke with were almost cultishly devoted to their guns, viewing their weapons as quite literally sacred objects. Reenacting wasn't so much a celebration of the birth of our nation and all of our freedoms as it was a celebration of gun rights ... at least to the subset of reenactors who saw fit to walk up to me and volunteer their opinions about guns.

Whoa pard, many reenactors ARE history buffs and discuss no modern politics. Others find guns interesting. Look on FB, try a search using 18th Century.


I worked with a fair number of living history folks in grad school. The majority of reenactors are genuinely good people, but even they've admitted there's been a rise in political zealotry in their ranks. I blame the SCV crowd, to them "Unreconstructed" is the highest compliment.
 
2013-07-06 01:32:22 PM

Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.


The problem women have with your mentality is that they suffer permanent physical change--possibly  illness if complications spring up--and  run the risk of death in childbirth from pregnancy. You...stand to lose some money.

Can you see why claiming those two are equal investments might be offensive?
 
2013-07-06 01:33:25 PM

bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?


you may want what they do
but you cant eat it wear it or take it home with you
they produce nothing
you might want thier service but a hooker provides service too
thats not a product
cops might reduce loss of a product so they might claim a share of that
teachers might (sometimes somewhere) train people to be able to be productive (but ill leave it open how often that happens)
thats not a product either
side issue   how many non productive people (cops, teachers, hair-dressers, politicians, et al ) can be supported by those who produce something


Please rewrite this using proper sentence structure and check your punctuation. You are not e. e. cummings, and this is so difficult to read that I'm having trouble following your point, though I gather that you disagree with cman.
 
2013-07-06 01:34:35 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: The comment was a (too?) subtle dig at thamike. I'm the middle-aged stoned guy with ADD but he's the one having trouble staying on topic.


I was just making conversation.  Conversations sometimes go off on tangents, not that that was my intention.  You being old and stoned and having ADD would explain why my agreement with your basic point while offering another example might seem like I was plunging headlong into the depths of a completely unrelated topic.

The squirrel is still here, guvnor.  The squirrel is right here with us.
 
2013-07-06 01:34:39 PM

Peki: Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.

This may surprise you, but if I'm pregnant, and decide to keep the kid, and you give up all parental rights, yeah, I'm okay with not making the guy pay child support for it.

/however, just like a girl shouldn't get drunk at a party by herself, a guy ought to always keep things under wraps, so to speak. Don't let yourself get into the situation in the first place.




Let's just say that I'm skeptical, at best. Even taking you at your word, there are billions of women on this earth. They might disagree. I have no problem forfeiting the right to have input into a woman's right to choose. Provided, a woman can't use a baby to trap a guy financially. Yes. If she's game and wants your plonker, use a jiffy so you can bonk her, as the old British advert use to go. But rules aren't for when everyone is on their best behavior. Rules are for when people are at their worst.
 
kab
2013-07-06 01:35:24 PM

Uzzah: Nuget, eh? Isn't he dead or in jail or something?


You don't expect to actually back up his words, do you?
 
2013-07-06 01:36:15 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: cman: Brian_of_Nazareth: thamike: Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.

I feel the same way, on a much more give or take level, about gun ownership.

I have a very different opinion on that one.  I'm Canadian, we don't have an explicit right to keep and bear arms and I'm good with it.  Seems to have worked out for us.  You guys seem mostly comfortable with where you're at, so please carry-on.

Not completely sure why gun rights comments so commonly show up in any thread related to other rights.

Cheers.

Its about political polarization.

We will use any opportunity we can to bash the other side politically. The conversation could be about liposuction and you bet your ass someone will use it to bash someone else.

Quite true, though I would add there's probably more than one reason.

The comment was a (too?) subtle dig at thamike.  I'm the middle-aged stoned guy with ADD but he's the one having trouble staying on topic.

Cheers.


DUDE I AM A STONED AS WELL
 
2013-07-06 01:36:35 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.


And we're done. There is no such thing as "people who should not be allowed to vote." Just non-people and non-adults.

Also, why does anyone think Ted Nugent's opinion on the subject is worth a damn? He doesn't like folks on TANF? Fark him. We don't care about how your dumb ass feels about it, Ted.
 
2013-07-06 01:40:04 PM
Echoing a few earlier comments, as much as I despise Nugent, he only said people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote. Then author of the article then extrapolated the rest. Thanks, subtard, for wasting my time. Same goes for whomever greened this headline, you both should lose your right to post. Morans.
 
2013-07-06 01:40:15 PM

UNC_Samurai: dericwater: clambam: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Why is it when you guys want to defend yourselves from charges of racism and sexism you have to dig back a hundred years or more to find something worth bragging about? "Sure we want to rape you with a plastic dildo if you dare to ask for an abortion, but look how awesome we were in 1919! And, yeah, of course we want to disenfranchise blacks and Latinos now, but wasn't what we did in 1865 totally awesome? Where's your sense of gratitude?" In point of fact the repub Party has done nothing of value to the country since Teddy Roosevelt's day. At best caretaker repub presidents like Eisenhower or Bush I didn't make things worse. Go away. No one will miss you.

I would say that Bush 1 is the only modern Republican who hasn't totally wrecked the country. Eisenhower was a democrat recruited by the GOP to give political life support to Nixon.

Not quite - Eisenhower was in a sense drafted. Members of both political parties sought him out, because Douglas MacArthur was considering a political career. You want to talk about a disaster in the making...


And which party would Douggie boy be running under? I'm guessing the GOP only because he and Truman didn't along very well.
 
2013-07-06 01:41:19 PM

thamike: Brian_of_Nazareth: The comment was a (too?) subtle dig at thamike. I'm the middle-aged stoned guy with ADD but he's the one having trouble staying on topic.

I was just making conversation.  Conversations sometimes go off on tangents, not that that was my intention.  You being old and stoned and having ADD would explain why my agreement with your basic point while offering another example might seem like I was plunging headlong into the depths of a completely unrelated topic.

The squirrel is still here, guvnor.  The squirrel is right here with us.


No worries, I'm here for the chat as well, never intended to come across as mean spirited.  Taking a break from LDAP and Catalyst.

Cheers.
 
2013-07-06 01:43:00 PM

Bigdogdaddy: Who cares what the fark Ted says.  Oh yeah, Salon and Mother Jones and Huffpo.  Carry on.


Just curious--was it Salon or Mother Jones that invited him to sit in on the State of the Union? Since we're on the subject of people that give a fark what his opinion is.
 
2013-07-06 01:46:14 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Mangoose: man who wants an abortion

Should probably have just kept it in his pants.


that should be a fortune cookie or something.

And listen. I am pro choice. Do as you wish. But don't pretend that there's only one party involved. Because if it is "her body, her choice?", Why is it that what comes out of it isn't "her baby, her problem"
 
2013-07-06 01:49:05 PM

Bigdogdaddy: Who cares what the fark Ted says.  Oh yeah, Salon and Mother Jones and Huffpo.  Carry on.


The NRA and Fox News certainly do.  He was a keynote speaker at their last convention and he's a regular contributor on Fox.
 
2013-07-06 01:50:11 PM

CokeBear: These folks should be able to vote:

* Felons - Not just ex-felons, but those in prison as well. Who has a greater interest in laws & justice than those who have been directly impacted by it. In some cases unfairly. (with one exception, outlined below)

* Minors - If you're interested enough to want to vote, perhaps even as young as 13, you should be able to (Girls starting at 12 because they mature faster, of course). Policies enacted now will impact the lives of seniors for only a few years, but will impact the lives of young people for half a century or more. I think their interests should be key. Also: Mandatory voting for 16-18 year olds in school. Make it a requirement to graduate. If they get into the habit maybe more will continue to do so later.

* Everyone in the country. Citizens, non-citizens, undocumented folks. Everyone, no exceptions. None of this crazy "papers please". Laws impact everyone, not just those who have been here a long time, or jumped through the hoops to get the citizen prize.

Who should not be able to vote (or contribute to campaigns):

* Corporations - Should be obvious by now why this is a bad idea

* Those who have been out of the country for a year or more. This is the corollary to my "everyone in the country gets to vote". If you leave, too bad.

* Those convicted of high treason or subverting the constitution. Of course most legislators since 9/11 would fall into this category, since they passed such blatantly unconstitutional laws including the "Patriot act". Anyone barred from voting for this reason should also of course be barred from running for office.

/Its Saturday. Just let me keep living my Liberal fantasy here, ok?


People who live out of the country who are still citizens still pay taxes and should be able to vote. Oh, and since we're on the taxation with representation thing, DC should have a senator and a representative.
 
2013-07-06 01:53:28 PM

cman: You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?


That was then, this is now, Ponyboy.
 
2013-07-06 01:55:21 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.


I'm gonna have to add nonresident noncitizens to that list. I'm not convinced that giving the whole world a vote on American politics is necessarily the best idea; I'd prefer to limit it to people who actually live here.
 
2013-07-06 01:55:35 PM

Fart_Machine: Bigdogdaddy: Who cares what the fark Ted says.  Oh yeah, Salon and Mother Jones and Huffpo.  Carry on.

The NRA and Fox News certainly do.  He was a keynote speaker at their last convention and he's a regular contributor on Fox.


He's actually on the Board of Directors for the NRA.
 
2013-07-06 01:57:23 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: I'm firmly of the opinion that every citizen of appropriate age should be allowed to vote unless they are otherwise held to be mentally incompetent.

That said, I'd love to see the Nuge's reaction to the idea that only military service guarantees citizenship to vote.

Cheers

//Do you want to know more?
//I think Teddy would lose the vote twice in this case.


Nope, don't put any caveats on it outside of age. Everyone over the age of 18 gets to vote. The mentally incompetent, assuming you mean mongoloids, the mentally retarded, people with downs syndrome, etc., numbers are negligible. No reason to look like an ass denying them. But, I would be in favor of compulsory voting for all over 18, like or Australian brothers and sisters do.
 
2013-07-06 01:59:37 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.


The head of Tea Party Nation has said that only land-owners should be able to vote:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/11/30/132532/tea-party-voting -p roperty
 
2013-07-06 02:00:48 PM
When you start to have a discussion about who should be able to vote and who shouldn't because of something that ass clown Ted Nugent said you should step back and get a grip.
 
2013-07-06 02:07:32 PM

cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.


I guess William F. Buckley didn't get the memo.

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.
   National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.
   The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.
   That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom.

National Review editorial, 8/24/1957, 4:7, pp. 148-9:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/4255/
 
2013-07-06 02:10:40 PM

red5ish: When you start to have a discussion about who should be able to vote and who shouldn't because of something that ass clown Ted Nugent said you should step back and get a grip


I guess if you post in the thread about Ted Nugent then you should step back and get a grip, right? Come on, the article was written satirically, and most people in the thread know this.  Although with Poe's Law clearly in action here, some mistook it as his actual thoughts.
 
2013-07-06 02:10:46 PM

HighOnCraic: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

I guess William F. Buckley didn't get the memo.

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.
   National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will ...


A rich asshole said something stupid so it must automatically mean that the GOP must bow down to his demands
 
2013-07-06 02:14:20 PM

cman: You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.


Do we have to pretend the southern strategy and the 1960s never happened?
 
2013-07-06 02:14:24 PM

bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers


What about Wall Street bankers?  (I know you dummies vilify teachers and I understand why - you literally learned nothing while in school.  The Republicans - they worship stupid!)
 
2013-07-06 02:15:21 PM

cman: A rich asshole said something stupid so it must automatically mean that the GOP must bow down to his demands


If only over-intellectualized racism was their only fault, they might still be a viable political party.
 
2013-07-06 02:16:05 PM

hardinparamedic: cman: You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Do we have to pretend the southern strategy and the 1960s never happened?


Ah HA! Deflection!
 
2013-07-06 02:16:18 PM

PsiChick: Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.

The problem women have with your mentality is that they suffer permanent physical change--possibly  illness if complications spring up--and  run the risk of death in childbirth from pregnancy. You...stand to lose some money.

Can you see why claiming those two are equal investments might be offensive?


I never claimed they were equal commitments. (Because calling it an investment is rather part of my point)

But isn't that why you should have the right to choose without a guy's input?
 
2013-07-06 02:16:33 PM

yelmrog: thamike: cman: Are you serious?

You have to earn the right to ask this question without receiving immediate peals of laughter, Mr. I Slept Through the Southern Strategy Section of the Color-My-Lunch Menu at Cracker Barrel.

The Southern Strategy does not exist to anyone on the right these days.  It never happened. The GOP has always been the party of freedom.  Always.

We have always been at war blah blah blah...


Yeah, the GOP.  They saw 1984 by George Orwell as a guide on how to exist, not the cautionary tale it was meant to be.
 
2013-07-06 02:16:55 PM

Sgt Otter: yelmrog: thamike: cman: Are you serious?

You have to earn the right to ask this question without receiving immediate peals of laughter, Mr. I Slept Through the Southern Strategy Section of the Color-My-Lunch Menu at Cracker Barrel.

The Southern Strategy does not exist to anyone on the right these days.  It never happened. The GOP has always been the party of freedom.  Always.

We have always been at war blah blah blah...

[www.sciway.net image 220x268]

"Hello, friends, Sen. Strom Thurmond here.  If you're not familiar with me, I ran in 1948 as the candidate for The Segregation Party, and I even frequently peppered my stump speeches with the N-Bomb.  Even though I hated Truman for integrating the U.S. Army, I ran for Senate as a Democrat.  Now, in 1964, Democratic President LBJ, working with a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats in Congress, passed the Civil Rights Act.  I tried to filibuster that damn thing for a record-setting 24 hours, but eventually even my racist-ass got tired.

Shortly after, I switched my party affiliation to Republican.  Which was, I assure you, is nothing more than a coincidence.  Honest, smelly, red-skin, drunk-off-their-heathen-ass Injun."


Spot on, but his record-setting filibuster was during the discussion of the '57 civil rights bill, not the '64.

His thoughts on the '65 Voting Rights Act:

Thurmond Labels Voting Rights Act 'One Milestone on Road to Oblivion'
By JOHN V. H. DIPPEL
Terming the Johnson administration's Voting Rights Bill "the most schematic, abysmal departure from the Constitution in a century," Senator Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.) last night delivered a double-barreled blast at this measure and the "insurrectionist" civil rights movement in this country. Speaking before an audience of over two hundred persons in McCosh, the conservative senator bitterly attacked the Voting Rights Bill for its numerous alleged violations of the Constitution. According to Mr. Thurmond, the United States has "reached a point of no return in its constitutional course." In recent years the "erosion of the Constitution has invited disorders" that may well turn the unprecedented accomplishments of American society into "a flash in the pan," the senator remarked. Labeling the Negro "civil disobedience" demonstrations a "war against society," the controversial Republican senator turned his criticism to the nature of the mass protest  movement. "All civil rights demonstrations are inherently illegal," the senator observed. He stressed the demonstrators' non-violent tactics and provocation of white Southerners as being essential for arousing national approval. ' Insurrection "Rarely," he explained, are the abject of the grievance and the law that is disobeyed related." Mr. Thurmond described the civil rights demonstrations as "an insurrection rather than a reform movement." . . . one that "seeks to undermine a whole spectrum of society-the spectrum of law." Acknowledging the popular propensity to "sympathy with the underdog," the rightist senator nevertheless pointed .to a general lack of "perceptiveness of reason" in viewing civil rights protest demonstrations. Many people, he noted, recognize the legitimate grievances of the Negroes, but "fail to evaluate the remedies of the insurrectionist movement." Mr. Thurmond prophesied that Negro demands will "continue to grow and will never be satisfied without the destruction of society based on law."

http://libserv23.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/cgi-bin/princeto np eriodicals?a=d&d=Princetonian19650514-01.2.6&e=-------en-20--1--txt-IN -----
 
2013-07-06 02:20:23 PM

Selena Luna: bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?


you may want what they do
but you cant eat it wear it or take it home with you
they produce nothing
you might want thier service but a hooker provides service too
thats not a product
cops might reduce loss of a product so they might claim a share of that
teachers might (sometimes somewhere) train people to be able to be productive (but ill leave it open how often that happens)
thats not a product either
side issue   how many non productive people (cops, teachers, hair-dressers, politicians, et al ) can be supported by those who produce something

Please rewrite this using proper sentence structure and check your punctuation. You are not e. e. cummings, and this is so difficult to read that I'm having trouble following your point, though I gather that you disagree with cman.


so solly
by golly
i have been punctured by the punktuation police
 
2013-07-06 02:23:45 PM
too bad the Nuge's views aren't as badass as that riff from "Great White Buffalo"
 
2013-07-06 02:24:52 PM

bindlestiff2600: Selena Luna: bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?


you may want what they do
but you cant eat it wear it or take it home with you
they produce nothing
you might want thier service but a hooker provides service too
thats not a product
cops might reduce loss of a product so they might claim a share of that
teachers might (sometimes somewhere) train people to be able to be productive (but ill leave it open how often that happens)
thats not a product either
side issue   how many non productive people (cops, teachers, hair-dressers, politicians, et al ) can be supported by those who produce something

Please rewrite this using proper sentence structure and check your punctuation. You are not e. e. cummings, and this is so difficult to read that I'm having trouble following your point, though I gather that you disagree with cman.

so solly
by golly
i have been punctured by the punktuation police


winterwhile-like typing detected
 
2013-07-06 02:26:39 PM

Candy Colored Clown: winterwhile-like typing detected


Not enough question marks.
 
2013-07-06 02:27:29 PM

cman: A rich asshole said something stupid so it must automatically mean that the GOP must bow down to his demands


Right, because Buckley had no influence on the conservative movement that took over the Republican Party in the 60s...

Oh, wait:

Sixty years ago this November, a recent Yale graduate published a book that outraged the distinguished university's administration and launched a young conservative's career. The book was God and Man at Yale. The man was William F. Buckley, Jr.
The book's success led Buckley to found National Review in 1955, which quickly became the preeminent conservative publication in the United States. As conservative historian George Nash noted, "Without Buckley, the movement might have floundered indefinitely in its search for sophisticated leadership." Before there was a Tea Party, Ronald Reagan, or even Barry Goldwater, there was William F. Buckley, Jr.
For those young conservatives who don't know about modern conservatism's intellectual godfather, here's the scoop on William F. Buckley, Jr., who he is, and why he matters.
William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925-2008) was the Renaissance man of modern American conservatism. He was the founder and editor-in-chief of National Review, a syndicated columnist, the host of "Firing Line" (TV's longest-running weekly public affairs program), the author of more than 50 books, and a college lecturer for nearly five decades. His mighty stream of words is almost surely unequalled by any other writer of the last 100 years.
When Bill Buckley came along, American conservatism was composed of "a congeries of ill assorted half-enemies." Buckley purged the conservative movement of its extremist elements and united the rest by persuading traditionalists, libertarians, and anti-communists to focus on a common enemy-liberalism.
Buckley's vision of ordered liberty shaped and guided modern conservatism from its infancy in the 1950s to its present-day maturity as a political force that has transformed American politics. As George Will has written, "Before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater, there was National Review, and before there was National Review, there was Bill Buckley with a spark in his mind, and the spark in 1980 became a conflagration."

 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/11/william-f-buckley-conservatisms -in tellectual-godfather/

 The great majority of conservative intellectuals warmly welcomed the new journal on the block and lined up to write for it. NR became and remains to this day the most influential conservative magazine in America. George Nash wrote that if National Review had not been founded, "there would probably have been no cohesive intellectual force on the Right in the 1960s and 1970s." [11] Much of the history of American conservatism after 1955 is the history of individuals associated with the magazine that Bill Buckley founded and edited for almost 40 years.
Buckley clearly had certain goals in mind for his magazine: Keep the Republican Party, the primary political vehicle of conservatives, tilted to the right; eliminate any and all extremists from the conservative movement; flay and fleece the liberals at every opportunity; and push hard for a policy of victory over Communism in the Cold War.
One of his most significant public policy contributions to the modern conservative movement (and the Reagan presidency) was as an early champion of supply-side economics. Buckley hired a young economist, Alan Reynolds, making NR the first journal of public opinion to have a writer with a supply-side perspective on staff.
Conservative Politics
Although Buckley insisted that National Review was founded not to make practical politics but to think and write, Buckley did not hesitate to involve himself in politics. In September 1960, he invited some 100 young conservative activists to gather at the family estate in Sharon, Connecticut, to found Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). YAF provided much of the manpower for Senator Barry Goldwater's successful campaign to secure the 1964 presidential nomination.

 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/12/william-f-buckley- jr- conservative-icon
 
2013-07-06 02:27:39 PM
Subby must be high, most liberals do not think the vote should be restricted from anyone, except maybe children and corporations.
 
2013-07-06 02:28:18 PM

Candy Colored Clown: bindlestiff2600: Selena Luna: bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?


you may want what they do
but you cant eat it wear it or take it home with you
they produce nothing
you might want thier service but a hooker provides service too
thats not a product
cops might reduce loss of a product so they might claim a share of that
teachers might (sometimes somewhere) train people to be able to be productive (but ill leave it open how often that happens)
thats not a product either
side issue   how many non productive people (cops, teachers, hair-dressers, politicians, et al ) can be supported by those who produce something

Please rewrite this using proper sentence structure and check your punctuation. You are not e. e. cummings, and this is so difficult to read that I'm having trouble following your point, though I gather that you disagree with cman.

so solly
by golly
i have been punctured by the punktuation police

winterwhile-like typing detected


Best part.................................................................f orever?
 
2013-07-06 02:31:51 PM

dericwater: clambam: cman: Delay:
I would say that Bush 1 is the only modern Republican who hasn't totally wrecked the country. Eisenhower was a democrat recruited by the GOP to give political life support to Nixon.


Oh I wouldn't say that. He continued Reagan's policies almost to the letter.
 
2013-07-06 02:34:28 PM
5/5
 
2013-07-06 02:34:44 PM

Mangoose: PsiChick: Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.

The problem women have with your mentality is that they suffer permanent physical change--possibly  illness if complications spring up--and  run the risk of death in childbirth from pregnancy. You...stand to lose some money.

Can you see why claiming those two are equal investments might be offensive?

I never claimed they were equal commitments. (Because calling it an investment is rather part of my point)

But isn't that why you should have the right to choose without a guy's input?


So what exactly was the bolded part, if not saying 'women shouldn't have the right to choose without male input because men stand to lose something too'?
 
2013-07-06 02:37:19 PM

TalenLee: I'll go one worse. Voting should be compulsory.

"Oh, the infrastructure couldn't handle that."

Good. Now you have a reason to make your voting infrastructure good.

"Many people will vote without being informed."

You think they don't know? In the 2012 election, the majority of likely Republican voters thought Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, in Ohio. That's mental.

"It's a form of tyranny."

God, Americans and their love of calling basic interactions with society tyranny. Seatbelts are tyranny, road laws are tyranny. You don't get to spend that nickel, because you were busy blowing it  when suggesting you guys stop hogging all the IPs was a form of tyranny.

"If you do this, you'll have a lot of people voting who weren't before, and who's to say we want them?"

You want them to have to vote. If they have to vote, there will be at least one week every two years where they have to give a shiat about politics, and then, microcosmically, you will start them towards paying attention.

"It'll never work."

Yes, it won't work, because this is America, the home of the free and the land of the brave, where there is no system so awful, so nonfunctional and so downright deleritous to governance, liberty and human dignity, that they won't resist maintaining it as it is forever, because Founders And Freedom And Also.

/blah blah blah Talen
//nobody cares
///Australian, not even drunk


So very much this.  I'd like a system that opened up a wider field, so we didn't have to choose between "Center-right" and "Calligula-right."  Because the level of denial that springs from "Because Jesus" is on par with "Ordered the army to the sea and told them to start stabbing because fark Neptune."

/American
//Iowan to be precise
///fark Steve King with a rabid polar bear
 
2013-07-06 02:38:03 PM

Peki: Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.

This may surprise you, but if I'm pregnant, and decide to keep the kid, and you give up all parental rights, yeah, I'm okay with not making the guy pay child support for it.

/however, just like a girl shouldn't get drunk at a party by herself, a guy ought to always keep things under wraps, so to speak. Don't let yourself get into the situation in the first place.


does this apply to women as well?
 
2013-07-06 02:42:41 PM
Noted political wizard Ted Nugent lays out his list of 5 groups...

blog.angelatung.com
 
2013-07-06 02:44:50 PM

The Green Intern: "Center-right" and "Calligula-right."


That received a hearty guffaw from me.

/American
//Texan to be precise
///fark Rick Perry, Louis Gohmert, Steve Stockman, Ron Paul, Sam Johnson, etc. etc.
////Too many farks to give
 
2013-07-06 02:46:23 PM

Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.


No, no, the 47% don't pay taxes, remember?  No taxation, no representation.
 
2013-07-06 02:47:10 PM

shamanwest: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Ahhh....good to see you're back to being a shill.


Look, I hate defending Republicans as much as anyone, but if you want to stop putting people in that position, don't start your argument with unimaginative hyperbole.

/... And why the fark are "Italians and Chinese" a single item?
 
2013-07-06 02:50:28 PM

Hickory-smoked: /... And why the fark are "Italians and Chinese" a single item?


Fondness for noodles?
 
2013-07-06 02:55:43 PM

cman: Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.


Of course, no one in today's Republican Party would even consider ending women's suffrage. . .

I don't enjoy having to write this, but I think the time has come to limit women's suffrage. The noble experiment that began when women were granted the right to vote in 1920, by the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, has failed.
In the years before the amendment was passed, women's suffrage was opposed not only by men, but also by some women. The historians tell us that it was opposed by married women who circulated in political-leadership circles, who had a behind-the-scenes influence on women's issues with the decision-makers, and who didn't want to see that influence turned over to the hoi polloi.
These women also argued that if women had the vote, they would want to impose prohibition of alcoholic beverages on the nation. Who is to say that they were wrong?
Those arguments aren't the ones we hear today, but there still seems to be something wrong with letting women vote. The mere fact that they strongly favored Obama in 2008, and that they continue to strongly favor him in 2012, should be argument enough for some kind of reform.
I do not favor taking their votes away entirely. I don't perceive any threat that they will re-impose Prohibition. But I wouldn't allow them to vote in any election featuring male opponents, because they are too likely to make their choices for reasons that have nothing to do with the welfare of the republic.
I see no danger in letting them vote in elections where both opponents are women, but so far there has never been a presidential election in which even one of the major party tickets was headed by a woman. And there has never been one in which both V.P. candidates were women. So we are dealing only in theory for now.

http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/should-we-repeal-womens-suffrage/?utm _s ource=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Bernardgoldbergc om+%28BernardGoldberg.com%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
 
2013-07-06 02:56:50 PM
6. People who shiat their pants on purpose.
 
2013-07-06 02:57:00 PM

Sgt Otter: Fart_Machine: Bigdogdaddy: Who cares what the fark Ted says.  Oh yeah, Salon and Mother Jones and Huffpo.  Carry on.

The NRA and Fox News certainly do.  He was a keynote speaker at their last convention and he's a regular contributor on Fox.

He's actually on the Board of Directors for the NRA.


And he was a guest performer at Glenn Beck's Tea Party events, and several Republican senatorial rallies last election.

But yeah, "Bigdogdaddy," keep telling yourself that Nugent is a liberal fabrication who in no way reflects the devolving, mouth-breathing insanity that has been gradually consuming the Republican base for decades.
 
2013-07-06 02:59:01 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: No we're going with the "Nugent said people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote, and the author of the column satirically extrapolated that out to 5 other groups" statement .


Yeah - the writer also is just using Nugent as a means of getting page hits.  Does anyone actually take Nugent seriously?  (Sadly, some people probably do).

I'm very much in favor of voting rights, but I don't encourage people to vote.  If you have to be encouraged to vote, you probably can't even name your congressman and you probably aren't qualified to cast a ballot.
 
2013-07-06 03:12:27 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: No we're going with the "Nugent said people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote, and the author of the column satirically extrapolated that out to 5 other groups" statement .


You did notice that the original post had nothing to do with the satirical list of five, right?  And the post you responded to mentioning right-wingers saying dumb sh*t, you saw that, right?
 
2013-07-06 03:30:08 PM
WTF with the TANF love? TANF does not just reward people for being parasites, it actively creates the environment best suited to produce large numbers of career criminals.

Oh well, those criminals vote dumbocrat, so it's all good, amirite?
 
2013-07-06 03:31:44 PM

SevenizGud: TANF does not just reward people for being parasites, it actively creates the environment best suited to produce large numbers of career criminals.


TANF teaches people to become Wall Street speculators?
 
2013-07-06 03:40:14 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.


I don't even agree with number 2...if you're old enough to work, earn income, and pay taxes, you should be able to vote for the politicians that will then legislate away your benefits, workplace safety, and reasonable wages.

Subby is an idiot troll.

You're an idiot troll, subby.
 
2013-07-06 03:41:36 PM

Hickory-smoked: Sgt Otter: Fart_Machine: Bigdogdaddy: Who cares what the fark Ted says.  Oh yeah, Salon and Mother Jones and Huffpo.  Carry on.

The NRA and Fox News certainly do.  He was a keynote speaker at their last convention and he's a regular contributor on Fox.

He's actually on the Board of Directors for the NRA.

And he was a guest performer at Glenn Beck's Tea Party events, and several Republican senatorial rallies last election.

But yeah, "Bigdogdaddy," keep telling yourself that Nugent is a liberal fabrication who in no way reflects the devolving, mouth-breathing insanity that has been gradually consuming the Republican base for decades.


It's not as if any Republicans in Congress takes Nugent seriously. . .

After choosing inflammatory entertainer Ted Nugent as his plus-one for Tuesday's State of the Union address, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) explained his decision in an interview with CNN, saying he made the choice based on Nugent's merit.
"He's a very articulate spokesman," Stockman told CNN. "I'm excited to have him. I think he gives a balance to what's being said tonight at the White House. And it will be a balance. The president gives his views and his opinions. And we live in a free country where other people get to speak their opinion."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/steve-stockman-ted-nugent_n _2 671500.html
 
2013-07-06 03:42:41 PM

HighOnCraic: I don't enjoy having to write this


Yes you do.  Either take ownership of your grief-mongering or don't bother.
 
2013-07-06 03:48:17 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Mangoose: man who wants an abortion

Should probably have just kept it in his pants.


Are there guys out there who are so stupid as to not realize "Hey, if I have vaginal sex with this woman a kid might get born?" Birth control is not perfect. If you don't want to have kids, don't have vaginal sex (or anal if you hate playing the odds).
If you have vaginal sex you ARE consenting to the possibility of a child. Protected or not.
 
2013-07-06 03:53:28 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.


I've always felt Civics should start being taught at 14 and one should start being allowed to vote at 16, only counting as a 1/2 vote; at 18, you get a full vote. My thinking is this way more young people might be interested in the process as well as better understand the process.
 
2013-07-06 03:56:31 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: HighOnCraic: I don't enjoy having to write this

Yes you do.  Either take ownership of your grief-mongering or don't bother.


Um, maybe I should've put that block of text in quotes.  I am not Bernie Goldberg.

/Reread the thread for context.
 
2013-07-06 03:58:29 PM
I agree with the list, except for veterans. Let them vote, and lock out everyone older than 65.
 
2013-07-06 04:01:31 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: CokeBear: The My Little Pony Killer: Mangoose: man who wants an abortion

Should probably have just kept it in his pants.

What if she literally tied me down and (because I enjoy that sort of thing) got me off...

Safety word?


Safe words are for pussies.
 
2013-07-06 04:06:47 PM

sparkeyjames: dericwater: clambam: cman: Delay:
I would say that Bush 1 is the only modern Republican who hasn't totally wrecked the country. Eisenhower was a democrat recruited by the GOP to give political life support to Nixon.

Oh I wouldn't say that. He continued Reagan's policies almost to the letter.


Maybe because we kicked his ass out after just four years.
 
2013-07-06 04:07:18 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: HighOnCraic: I don't enjoy having to write this

Yes you do.  Either take ownership of your grief-mongering or don't bother.


Uh, he was quoting Bernard Goldberg.
 
2013-07-06 04:10:30 PM

Candy Colored Clown: The Green Intern: "Center-right" and "Calligula-right."

That received a hearty guffaw from me.

/American
//Texan to be precise
///fark Rick Perry, Louis Gohmert, Steve Stockman, Ron Paul, Sam Johnson, etc. etc.
////Too many farks to give


Caligula was pretty liberal in the area of sex. And the breaking of the glass ceiling for animals in administrative positions.
 
2013-07-06 04:13:35 PM

Hickory-smoked: shamanwest: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Ahhh....good to see you're back to being a shill.

Look, I hate defending Republicans as much as anyone, but if you want to stop putting people in that position, don't start your argument with unimaginative hyperbole.

/... And why the fark are "Italians and Chinese" a single item?


Because they belong to the $ to $$ class of restaurants, with just a small few in the $$$ category.
 
2013-07-06 04:19:30 PM
My children don't get a vote in my house. People who are on welfare are no different than children. They are dependents of the State.

Salon.com calls Ted Nugent a washed up, draft dodging extremist instead of addressing his ideas. Typical. That's the kind of low brow, hyper hysteria you always get from the libtard social engineers.
 
2013-07-06 04:39:31 PM
Dead people shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Once you die you should give up your right to vote.
 
2013-07-06 04:45:06 PM

MJMaloney187: My children don't get a vote in my house. People who are on welfare are no different than children. They are dependents of the State.

Salon.com calls Ted Nugent a washed up, draft dodging extremist instead of addressing his ideas. Typical. That's the kind of low brow, hyper hysteria you always get from the libtard social engineers.


Umm... that's what TFA was doing... addressing his idea... and pointing out how farking stupid it was.  It is so shocking that someone could express a thought such as what he did without recognizing the most glaring logical holes in it that having to 'address his idea' is a painful exercise in pointing out the obvious and therefore he deserves to be ridiculed for being an adoptive spokesperson for the mental midget of which you appear to be one judging by your apparent acceptance of the idea that you run governments and people's rights in a society the same way you run your household.
 
2013-07-06 04:46:51 PM

theknuckler_33: MJMaloney187: My children don't get a vote in my house. People who are on welfare are no different than children. They are dependents of the State.

Salon.com calls Ted Nugent a washed up, draft dodging extremist instead of addressing his ideas. Typical. That's the kind of low brow, hyper hysteria you always get from the libtard social engineers.

Umm... that's what TFA was doing... addressing his idea... and pointing out how farking stupid it was.  It is so shocking that someone could express a thought such as what he did without recognizing the most glaring logical holes in it that having to 'address his idea' is a painful exercise in pointing out the obvious and therefore he deserves to be ridiculed for being an adoptive spokesperson for the mental midget of which you appear to be one judging by your apparent acceptance of the idea that you run governments and people's rights in a society the same way you run your household.


Libtard social engineer!!!!!

/He actually used the word "libtard"
 
2013-07-06 04:50:59 PM
dead or in jail yet, nuge?
 
2013-07-06 04:53:05 PM

Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.


So do farkers, when they whine about citizens united.
 
2013-07-06 04:54:57 PM
It's weird that Fark filters the present-tense "shiat", but not the past-tense version of the same word: "shat"

That's all I've got.
 
2013-07-06 04:55:16 PM

cman: HighOnCraic: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

I guess William F. Buckley didn't get the memo.

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.
   National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to ass ...


Yes, you've finally understood how the Republican Party works.  Bowing down to rich assholes is what they do best.
 
2013-07-06 05:03:26 PM
Let's not forget hunters as welfare recipients. The hunting industry is highly subsidized by the government in government-owned land, CRP, special law enforcement, etc.
 
2013-07-06 05:09:49 PM
I'd say this thread needed more boobs, but it's actually full of them.
 
2013-07-06 05:38:43 PM

bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?


you may want what they do
but you cant eat it wear it or take it home with you
they produce nothing
you might want thier service but a hooker provides service too
thats not a product
cops might reduce loss of a product so they might claim a share of that
teachers might (sometimes somewhere) train people to be able to be productive (but ill leave it open how often that happens)
thats not a product either
side issue   how many non productive people (cops, teachers, hair-dressers, politicians, et al ) can be supported by those who produce something


I like the assumption of all value is through actual production. My job involves processing title and insurance work for car sales. Without me filling in all the stupid little forms like an OCD-maniac, the big piles of metal on the lot don't get turned into cash, because the state and the banks would reject contracts that aren't notarized or certified.
 
2013-07-06 05:45:37 PM

bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?


you may want what they do
but you cant eat it wear it or take it home with you
they produce nothing
you might want thier service but a hooker provides service too
thats not a product
cops might reduce loss of a product so they might claim a share of that
teachers might (sometimes somewhere) train people to be able to be productive (but ill leave it open how often that happens)
thats not a product either
side issue   how many non productive people (cops, teachers, hair-dressers, politicians, et al ) can be supported by those who produce something


There is a fundamental misunderstanding of something, happening here.
 
2013-07-06 05:53:37 PM
I have to agree with Ted Nugget on this one.  All people living in states who are leaches on the federal budget should not be allowed to votes.  That pretty much takes care of all red states.

They are lazy, complaining un-American sack of s**t anyway.
 
2013-07-06 06:22:49 PM

theknuckler_33: MJMaloney187: My children don't get a vote in my house. People who are on welfare are no different than children. They are dependents of the State.

Salon.com calls Ted Nugent a washed up, draft dodging extremist instead of addressing his ideas. Typical. That's the kind of low brow, hyper hysteria you always get from the libtard social engineers.

Umm... that's what TFA was doing... addressing his idea... and pointing out how farking stupid it was.  It is so shocking that someone could express a thought such as what he did without recognizing the most glaring logical holes in it that having to 'address his idea' is a painful exercise in pointing out the obvious and therefore he deserves to be ridiculed for being an adoptive spokesperson for the mental midget of which you appear to be one judging by your apparent acceptance of the idea that you run governments and people's rights in a society the same way you run your household.


That's the longest sentence I've ever read. Go change your tampon, Hoss.

So I went back and re-read the article, then I re-read Nugent's Washington Times piece. Both are pretty full of stupid, but it was clear in Nugent's original piece that he meant welfare in the form of food stamps and housing vouchers. Welfare is commonly defined this way. Salon's article semantically tosses out a homeowner's mortgage deduction as a form of welfare. The article reads like a toddler babbles.

And, yes, the world would be a better place if governments were run like my household.
 
2013-07-06 06:23:08 PM

Jabberwookiee: 6. People who shiat their pants on purpose.


You're going to have to put some sort of an "after the age of" time limit on that one. And then some form of certification of compliance, and a confidential method of maintaining those records. Unintended consequences can be a biatch.
 
2013-07-06 06:31:46 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Jabberwookiee: 6. People who shiat their pants on purpose.

You're going to have to put some sort of an "after the age of" time limit on that one. And then some form of certification of compliance, and a confidential method of maintaining those records. Unintended consequences can be a biatch.


How can pants-shiatting be on purpose and the result of unintended consequences at the same time?

Did you just divide by 0?
 
2013-07-06 06:37:58 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Jabberwookiee: 6. People who shiat their pants on purpose.

You're going to have to put some sort of an "after the age of" time limit on that one. And then some form of certification of compliance, and a confidential method of maintaining those records. Unintended consequences can be a biatch.


I usually don't put that much thought into poop jokes. Sorry.
 
2013-07-06 06:41:20 PM
"Anyone on welfare" was all Ted said.

The article writer extended the logical fallacy as a slippery slope. As far as people who Ted would recognize as being on welfare already don't vote much.

I personally would like ballots to be blank. No names, no offices. If you wish to vote you need to spell the name of the person and the office. That'll get some focus back on the fundamentals of education.
 
2013-07-06 06:44:45 PM

cman: Fart_Machine: How about we just stop pretending that Ted Nugent is relevant.

In the world of politics of course

But one cannot deny his relevancy in the history of music


Actually, one can.
 
2013-07-06 07:08:10 PM

Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.


He's not required to take care of the woman. He is required to take care of the child, for reasons that are blatantly obvious. (So is she.)

You may get a vasectomy. You should ask the advice and opinion of your partner, but that's only a courtesy. The decision is yours. Your body, your reproductive rights.
 
2013-07-06 07:18:28 PM

MJMaloney187: People who are on welfare are no different than children.


There are quite a few differences, actually.
 
2013-07-06 07:26:27 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: shamanwest: Ahhh....good to see you're back to being a shill.

... back?


There was that day last week when all of the trolls started to make me think we had some how divided by 0.
 
2013-07-06 07:26:52 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.


Well, and dead people and cats.

Is smitty thinking that anyone on Fark would ever agree to restrict the rights of ANYONE to vote? Hell, if Hitler was alive today, he could vote if he was a US citizen. I wouldn't like it much, but I'd never say he couldn't vote.
 
2013-07-06 07:27:02 PM

Without Fail: cman: Fart_Machine: How about we just stop pretending that Ted Nugent is relevant.

In the world of politics of course

But one cannot deny his relevancy in the history of music

Actually, one can.


This is one of my biggest gripes about Wikipedia.

All those lower standards for notability could confuse the hell out of people.

Cat Scratch Fever has an entry, but so does every shiatty song Linkin Park has made.
 
2013-07-06 07:32:16 PM

Without Fail: cman: Fart_Machine: How about we just stop pretending that Ted Nugent is relevant.

In the world of politics of course

But one cannot deny his relevancy in the history of music

Actually, one can.


Yeah, I'm hard pressed to think of anything from that man that's worth while. I mean, I hate the Stones, but their influence on and contribution to the world of music is at least readily apparent and obvious. You can hear it in most songs. Not as bad as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM" target="_blank">Pachelbel</a>, but close. Nugent, not so much.
 
2013-07-06 07:46:30 PM

cman: shamanwest: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Ahhh....good to see you're back to being a shill.

Are you serious?

You cherry-picked what I said to fit your preconceived notions.

I was saying that the GOP has NEVER been anti-women voting. Look at the full context of my post. You only cared about my first statement.


Someone else pointed this out more eloquently, but I was on my phone earlier, so snark was all I had time for. You're doing what you troll shills always do. Rather than actually discuss  why a statement is being made, in this case one of satire, you deflect going "We'll we're the party of X". I'm sorry, but there is nothing in today's Republican party that would make me want to connect them to Universal Suffrage. But, hey, if you want to pretend that the Republican party today is  really like the Republican party then (and insult them, fwiw), then sure, I'll bite. If I'm going to look at how the Republican party today treats women, then I'm going to guess that the motivation behind those earlier Republicans supporting women voting wasn't because they thought that women should be treated equal, but because they figured that the women married to Republican men would do what they're told, vote Republican, thus doubling their vote.

Feel better now? I didn't farking cherry-pick your words.
 
2013-07-06 08:11:16 PM

shamanwest: f I'm going to look at how the Republican party today treats women, then I'm going to guess that the motivation behind those earlier Republicans supporting women voting wasn't because they thought that women should be treated equal, but because they figured that the women married to Republican men would do what they're told, vote Republican, thus doubling their vote.


My grandfather told me that his father heard this exact argument when women's suffrage was in discussion.  The argument was "Why should I, an unmarried man, only get one vote while a married man gets two?"
 
2013-07-06 08:18:33 PM
People who should not be allowed to vote:
1. People under age 18
2. People who are not US citizens
3. Ted Nugent
4. People who believe that Ted Nugent has ever had anything resembling a useful idea.
 
2013-07-06 08:32:17 PM

Gyrfalcon: Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.

Well, and dead people and cats.

Is smitty thinking that anyone on Fark would ever agree to restrict the rights of ANYONE to vote? Hell, if Hitler was alive today, he could vote if he was a US citizen. I wouldn't like it much, but I'd never say he couldn't vote.


Depends, some states restrict the right to vote by convicts.
 
2013-07-06 08:41:25 PM

clambam: However, I believe that Item 2 will permanently clear the welfare rolls of people over 30 within ten years.


Yeah, cause no one who decided to go to school over 30 was EVER unemployed ::rolls eyes::

School doesn't do sh*t for you unless there's a decent (i.e. not minimum wage where one can support themselves like adults or a family) job at the other end. Those are lacking even for the people who HAVE completed post-secondary education right now. There would also be issues with class sizes and facilities, both of which would have to be vastly increased at a time when states are doing all they can to screw over public colleges, and the fact that there are some people who do not thrive in such a system, and never will.

Your "Item 2" is totally unfeasible, and will probably end up costing more than the public assistance it is supposed to replace. In a capitalist/socialist hybrid society such as the one we have, there will always be those people who cannot function within that society, mostly through circumstances not of their own making. We choose to take care of them regardless, because deep down we hope (though some would hate to admit it with all their rugged individualism) that if we were in the same unfortunate circumstance there would be someone to help us.

It's the human thing to do.
 
A7
2013-07-06 08:45:57 PM
He who pays the piper calls the tune.

If 47% of Duhmerikan citizens are not paying taxes, they have no skin in the game, and therefore should have zero say in matters of taxes or welfare benefits. Don't like it? get a farkin' job.

I'd go further and demand that unless you can pass a reading comprehension test at 5th grade level (like they had in Louisiana before the voting rights act) AND pass a test assuring your understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you should be barred from getting anywhere near a polling place.
 
2013-07-06 08:48:38 PM
I'm sure it's been said already, but the problem isn't the various subsets of people who vote, it's the buying of our politicians through all the money that is needed to win federal office.

I can't understand why the conservatives don't want to get the dirty money out of politics unless they are single issue idiots who don't care if the nation burns down to the ground as long as they get the one thing they want (which is very similar to how the Taliban think).
 
2013-07-06 08:57:20 PM

A7: no skin in the game


0/10  Too obvious.  You fouled out on that one.
 
2013-07-06 09:04:12 PM

PsiChick: So what exactly was the bolded part, if not saying 'women shouldn't have the right to choose without male input because men stand to lose something too'?


An overly acidic response to a comment in which someone says a man should just shut up and pay if he sticks his dick in.

Responses to my comment have been:

Abstinence. Vasectomy. Shut up and Pay. There was also one sensible "bag it up".

Women want their cake and they want to eat it too when it comes to "their choice". I don't know what else to say other than that. If it's your body, your choice - then it is your responsibility. Sorry. If you go to a sperm clinic should you be entitled to sue the donor? (I'm sure there are waivers to sign and all that just for this reason)

If you don't think there are a number of women who use their reproductive functions like an investment portfolio, then I think you may have too high a regard for women. And men are just as shiatty. Don't mistake me on that part. I know men suck just as much as women suck. We all suck, I got that. I just think that, for the good of society as a whole, making it so women who chose to have a child had to shoulder the burden would be a good idea. You would see a lot less unwanted pregnancies. Or at least a lot more abortions.

Bottom line, I believe that women look at the issue from one standpoint. And that standpoint is "my body". But you choose to have the baby. That's your choice. Not mine. Deal with your choice. You can opt to put the kid up for adoption and have nothing to do with him/her. Why can't I have that option just because the birth mother keeps him/her?
 
2013-07-06 09:10:47 PM

Befuddled: I'm sure it's been said already, but the problem isn't the various subsets of people who vote, it's the buying of our politicians through all the money that is needed to win federal office.

I can't understand why the conservatives don't want to get the dirty money out of politics unless they are single issue idiots who don't care if the nation burns down to the ground as long as they get the one thing they want (which is very similar to how the Taliban think).



The money needed for elections is the sympton, not the problem - the more money and power you concentrate in one place like Washington, the more valuable each vote in Congress (and the White House) becomes.

And then treating the symptoms (with campaign finance reform upon reform upon reform) becomes a process that can be ever more easily bent back against its stated purpose.

Assuming term limits are a nonstarter, there's only two ways out: 1) public financing...my own spin on it makes campaign money part of an office-holder's budget, and they can spend as much or as little of their office budget as they wish on campaigns, knowing that their opponent(s) will also get the amount they spend. Or 2) unlimited donations, but ONLY from individuals, with disclosure requirements increasing with the amount donated.
 
2013-07-06 09:17:08 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: shamanwest: f I'm going to look at how the Republican party today treats women, then I'm going to guess that the motivation behind those earlier Republicans supporting women voting wasn't because they thought that women should be treated equal, but because they figured that the women married to Republican men would do what they're told, vote Republican, thus doubling their vote.

My grandfather told me that his father heard this exact argument when women's suffrage was in discussion.  The argument was "Why should I, an unmarried man, only get one vote while a married man gets two?"


I remember hearing the same thing too, though I don't remember the source. Some anecdote or other. Of course, we are talking very-pre-southern strategy Republicans. To state that Republicans today support the women's right to vote because those Republicans did would be like saying that Shana should still piss in the men's room after the operation because she was born "Shane".
 
2013-07-06 09:17:52 PM

Mangoose: PsiChick: So what exactly was the bolded part, if not saying 'women shouldn't have the right to choose without male input because men stand to lose something too'?

An overly acidic response to a comment in which someone says a man should just shut up and pay if he sticks his dick in.

Responses to my comment have been:

Abstinence. Vasectomy. Shut up and Pay. There was also one sensible "bag it up".

Women want their cake and they want to eat it too when it comes to "their choice". I don't know what else to say other than that. If it's your body, your choice - then it is your responsibility. Sorry. If you go to a sperm clinic should you be entitled to sue the donor? (I'm sure there are waivers to sign and all that just for this reason)

If you don't think there are a number of women who use their reproductive functions like an investment portfolio, then I think you may have too high a regard for women. And men are just as shiatty. Don't mistake me on that part. I know men suck just as much as women suck. We all suck, I got that. I just think that, for the good of society as a whole, making it so women who chose to have a child had to shoulder the burden would be a good idea. You would see a lot less unwanted pregnancies. Or at least a lot more abortions.

Bottom line, I believe that women look at the issue from one standpoint. And that standpoint is "my body". But you choose to have the baby. That's your choice. Not mine. Deal with your choice. You can opt to put the kid up for adoption and have nothing to do with him/her. Why can't I have that option just because the birth mother keeps him/her?


Again: Because you  can physically walk away.

A woman cannot do that, because the  act of pregnancy and childbirth are potentially lethal even in the United States.
 
2013-07-06 09:26:05 PM

Gulper Eel: The money needed for elections is the sympton, not the problem - the more money and power you concentrate in one place like Washington, the more valuable each vote in Congress (and the White House) becomes.And then treating the symptoms (with campaign finance reform upon reform upon reform) becomes a process that can be ever more easily bent back against its stated purpose.Assuming term limits are a nonstarter, there's only two ways out: 1) public financing...my own spin on it makes campaign money part of an office-holder's budget, and they can spend as much or as little of their office budget as they wish on campaigns, knowing that their opponent(s) will also get the amount they spend. Or 2) unlimited donations, but ONLY from individuals, with disclosure requirements increasing with the amount donated.


The only way I could see having unlimited donations be allowable is have a tax on donations above a few thousand dollars. If the Cock(sic) Brothers want to give millions of dollars to skew elections in their favor, then they should pay a pretty steep percentage of that money as tax. The reality is that would never happen as the ultra-rich control our politics and they can already give near-unlimited amounts of money. IMO, about the only way to get control back is to eliminate all private funding and replace it with public funding.

Term limits won't make anything better. Term limits would only increase the power wielded by lobbyists and the staffers as the elected representatives would be deferring to their judgment more often as the elected representatives would never gain experience at their jobs.
 
2013-07-06 09:28:13 PM

PsiChick: A woman cannot do that, because the  act of pregnancy and childbirth are potentially lethal even in the United States.


A woman can walk away by aborting, giving up for adoption or simply walking away and leaving others to deal with it. That may not seem like the case to you, but believe me - it is. Leaving it to the grandparents, sisters/brothers, fathers. Whatever it is. You can just walk away, too. And plenty do.
 
2013-07-06 09:35:20 PM

PsiChick: Mangoose: PsiChick: (snipped for brevity)

Again: Because you  can physically walk away.

A woman cannot do that, because the  act of pregnancy and childbirth are potentially lethal even in the United States.


You're not going to convince him in this argument because the basis of the argument is flawed. The basis of the argument assumes that the same women who want the right to an abortion if they feel they need it are the same women who will get pregnant and make a man be responsible for the child, whether he wants the kid or not. It is a terrible and insipid argument, and it is also one of the arguments in the "pro-life" arsenal. If you break the argument down, it is saying that women who want the right to an abortion are only wanting that right because they are immoral and irresponsible. It is a way to weaken the image of the pro-choice woman, turning her desire to have control over her own body and make her own reproductive choices back into the discussion of morality and slut-shaming.

Mangoose: I'm going to call you out on your bullshiat now. Quote:   there are a number of women who use their reproductive functions like an investment portfolio.Something you may or may not realize about your statement... it is passive voice. In an argument, passive voice is used to either deflect responsibility or to make shiat up. So which is it. Are you deflecting something, or are you pulling "facts" out of your ass? How about you put up some hard figures or shut up and take your slut-shaming argument somewhere else?

KTHXBAI!
 
2013-07-06 09:38:42 PM

Lady Indica: Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.

He's not required to take care of the woman. He is required to take care of the child, for reasons that are blatantly obvious. (So is she.)

You may get a vasectomy. You should ask the advice and opinion of your partner, but that's only a courtesy. The decision is yours. Your body, your reproductive rights.


Does anyone else have the feeling the Republicans next step is parental rights for rapists. After all, it's about the baby. Shouldn't they get to know their father? The mother has no right to birth control, to say "NO!", to equal pay. To hell with her. Children need their rapist dads.
 
2013-07-06 09:42:19 PM

Mangoose: PsiChick: A woman cannot do that, because the  act of pregnancy and childbirth are potentially lethal even in the United States.

A woman can walk away by aborting, giving up for adoption or simply walking away and leaving others to deal with it. That may not seem like the case to you, but believe me - it is. Leaving it to the grandparents, sisters/brothers, fathers. Whatever it is. You can just walk away, too. And plenty do.


Erm, no. A woman can walk away...after RISKING HER FARKING LIFE. Seriously, I'm well aware women can walk away after birth. It's the BIRTH AND PREGNANCY THAT ARE STILL FARKING LETHAL that men do not have any say in whatsoever--and complaining that women have it easy when they  risk their lives is downright idiotic.

shamanwest: You're not going to convince him in this argument because the basis of the argument is flawed. The basis of the argument assumes that the same women who want the right to an abortion if they feel they need it are the same women who will get pregnant and make a man be responsible for the child, whether he wants the kid or not. It is a terrible and insipid argument, and it is also one of the arguments in the "pro-life" arsenal. If you break the argument down, it is saying that women who want the right to an abortion are only wanting that right because they are immoral and irresponsible. It is a way to weaken the image of the pro-choice woman, turning her desire to have control over her own body and make her own reproductive choices back into the discussion of morality and slut-shaming


His argument was that women should not have the right to an abortion because (implied) they have it 'so easy' compared to men, who 'can't' walk away from it. The obvious counter to that is that women don't have it easy (in his scenario), because while a man loses money, the woman may well LOSE HER FARKING LIFE. I support forcing either parent to pay child support, but that's a different conversation--I'm pointing out that what he said is total bullshiat, not commenting on the child-support aspect (though I do believe, because of the life-threatening bit, women should damn well be able to have abortion on demand).
 
2013-07-06 09:46:54 PM

bgilmore5: Lady Indica: Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.

He's not required to take care of the woman. He is required to take care of the child, for reasons that are blatantly obvious. (So is she.)

You may get a vasectomy. You should ask the advice and opinion of your partner, but that's only a courtesy. The decision is yours. Your body, your reproductive rights.

Does anyone else have the feeling the Republicans next step is parental rights for rapists. After all, it's about the baby. Shouldn't they get to know their father? The mother has no right to birth control, to say "NO!", to equal pay. To hell with her. Children need their rapist dads.


They've tried it a few times. No TotalFark, but I remember reading the headlines and being like 'OH FOR FARK SAKE'.
 
2013-07-06 10:04:19 PM
Veterans? But service was supposed to guarantee citizenship!
 
2013-07-06 10:09:45 PM
1) As previously pointed out, the list is not Nugent
2) No one should be denied the right to vote no matter their affiliation. Please note that for the purpose of this list corporations are NOT people.
 
2013-07-06 10:19:30 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.



Correct.
 
2013-07-06 10:22:54 PM

A7: He who pays the piper calls the tune.

If 47% of Duhmerikan citizens are not paying taxes, they have no skin in the game, and therefore should have zero say in matters of taxes or welfare benefits. Don't like it? get a farkin' job.

I'd go further and demand that unless you can pass a reading comprehension test at 5th grade level (like they had in Louisiana before the voting rights act) AND pass a test assuring your understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you should be barred from getting anywhere near a polling place.


I'll bite.

Bam!  You've been in an accident and have lost the use of your legs.  You're no longer able to be a truck driver and your income has taken a nose-dive such that you no longer are liable (i.e. "can afford") to pay taxes.  Do you think you should be allowed to vote?  You don't have any skin in the game after all.
 
2013-07-06 10:23:25 PM
 Mangoose: PsiChick: A woman cannot do that, because the  act of pregnancy and childbirth are potentially lethal even in the United States.

A woman can walk away by aborting, giving up for adoption or simply walking away and leaving others to deal with it. That may not seem like the case to you, but believe me - it is. Leaving it to the grandparents, sisters/brothers, fathers. Whatever it is. You can just walk away, too. And plenty do.

Erm, no. A woman can walk away...after RISKING HER FARKING LIFE. Seriously, I'm well aware women can walk away after birth. It's the BIRTH AND PREGNANCY THAT ARE STILL FARKING LETHAL that men do not have any say in whatsoever--and complaining that women have it easy when they  risk their lives is downright idiotic.

shamanwest: You're not going to convince him in this argument because the basis of the argument is flawed. The basis of the argument assumes that the same women who want the right to an abortion if they feel they need it are the same women who will get pregnant and make a man be responsible for the child, whether he wants the kid or not. It is a terrible and insipid argument, and it is also one of the arguments in the "pro-life" arsenal. If you break the argument down, it is saying that women who want the right to an abortion are only wanting that right because they are immoral and irresponsible. It is a way to weaken the image of the pro-choice woman, turning her desire to have control over her own body and make her own reproductive choices back into the discussion of morality and slut-shaming

His argument was that women should not have the right to an abortion because (implied) they have it 'so easy' compared to men, who 'can't' walk away from it. The obvious counter to that is that women don't have it easy (in his scenario), because while a man loses money, the woman may well LOSE HER FARKING LIFE. I support forcing either parent to pay child support, but that's a different conversation--I'm pointing out that what he ...


Ok for enders.

1) Not pro-life. I really am not. I apologize for thinking I'm more bitingly clever or funny than I am in my original comment. I really don't, but I feel like I've been misread. So that's my attempt at it.
2) Lethal? Honestly, in the rare occurence of that case we are both talking about (she dies, he doesn't want the baby), that's the end of story. Kid goes to adoption and that's the end of it. That's the lottery for guys in the position.
3) My point is that if you remove paternal consent from the issue, why do you not fully release the paternal parent from his legal and financial obligation when his wishes are counter to the mother? Because she might die? That's your answer? This isn't about stopping women from having abortions, it's about stopping them from having babies.
4) I'm not the one slut shaming here. I never told anyone to keep his or her pants on. (my responses to the men should abstain were tongue in cheek).
5) You can support "both parents paying child support" all you want, but see that happen is a different thing.
I support peace on earth and goodwill to all. But I don't do anything about it.

Nighty night.
 
2013-07-06 10:31:16 PM
If only a projectile would ricochet into his face.
 
2013-07-06 10:33:18 PM

A7: If 47% of Duhmerikan citizens are not paying taxes, they have no skin in the game, and therefore should have zero say in matters of taxes or welfare benefits. Don't like it? get a farkin' job.


We're at 47% unemployment?
 
2013-07-06 10:53:29 PM

Even With A Chainsaw: Leaving the actual abortion debate out of it, what's the rationale for this line of thinking?  It's cool to sacrifice the very founding principles of democracy and equality for an issue you feel really really really strongly about?


The problem with the "equality" debate is that the issue here really isn't equal. The baby is within the confines of my body. It is an issue unique to my female-ness. Notice, please, how we aren't legislating men's bodies for being procreative. We aren't, for example, removing the prostate of every man over the age of 50, because really, who needs an erection once they're that old? Women that old can't have kids, so why should men be able to? All the prostate does is encourage old men to have sex, and that hurts marriage because it increases the likelihood of adultery (because the woman obviously isn't interested in having sex with an old man). I say this in jest, but to try to make this about democracy and equality is a bullshiat argument. You want a say because you are a guy and aren't used to not having a say. Women haven't had a say in CENTURIES, and the one time we tell men they CAN'T have a say? Holy shiat you think we had started WW3.

Abortion, and specifically the shaming associated with it, is specific to women. When a man can carry a pregnancy to term and give birth on his own, then he can have a say on abortion.

/and yes, in case you're wondering, Thomas Beatie would be the perfect example of an exception
 
2013-07-06 10:59:15 PM
Why are we listening to insane people???
 
2013-07-06 11:02:05 PM

Lionel Mandrake: 1. Ted Nugent
2. Ted Nugent's family
3. People who like Ted Nugent
4. The families of people who like Ted Nugent
5. Ted Nugent


You said Ted Nugent twice.
 
2013-07-06 11:06:44 PM

andrewagill: Lionel Mandrake: 1. Ted Nugent
2. Ted Nugent's family
3. People who like Ted Nugent
4. The families of people who like Ted Nugent
5. Ted Nugent

You said Ted Nugent twice.


Maybe he likes Ted Nugent.
 
2013-07-06 11:08:46 PM

HighOnCraic: andrewagill: Lionel Mandrake: 1. Ted Nugent
2. Ted Nugent's family
3. People who like Ted Nugent
4. The families of people who like Ted Nugent
5. Ted Nugent

You said Ted Nugent twice.

Maybe he likes Ted Nugent.


Nobody likes Ted Nugent.
 
2013-07-06 11:14:18 PM

Gyrfalcon: HighOnCraic: andrewagill: Lionel Mandrake: 1. Ted Nugent
2. Ted Nugent's family
3. People who like Ted Nugent
4. The families of people who like Ted Nugent
5. Ted Nugent

You said Ted Nugent twice.

Maybe he likes Ted Nugent.

Nobody likes Ted Nugent.


Sorry, I was going for the not so obscure "Blazing Saddles" joke.
 
2013-07-06 11:14:52 PM

Mawson of the Antarctic: The main gripe I have with the Tea Party is that Powdered Wigs are cool, I would totally rock one, but everyone will think I'm a Teaheadist now. Damn them.


I would like to suggest a Powdered Mohawk.
 
m00
2013-07-06 11:34:12 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.


Wait, why?

I mean... the courts have ruled that corporations are people, but I've never heard of a court ruling that people are people. So therefore, the only people are corporations. So ONLY corporations should have the right to vote, since they're the entities with legal personhood.
 
2013-07-06 11:40:15 PM
I would like to see Texas administer a lethal injection to a corporation as a penalty for crime.
 
2013-07-06 11:55:09 PM
New Ted Nugent Cologne Tested On 'Every Goddamn Animal We Could Find'

ALPENA, MI-Ted Nugent held a press conference Monday to unveil his new signature fragrance "Heartland," which the veteran rocker touted as the most extensively tested cologne in history. "We tested that sumbiatch on ferrets, weasels, deer, elk, squirrels, bison, trout, crickets, gibbons, iguanas, donkeys, capybaras, koalas, hyenas, penguins, woodpeckers-every goddamn animal we could find," Nugent said. "And, just to be extra-certain it was safe for consumer use, we injected it into a kitten's bloodstream, sprayed it on otters with open wounds that we inflicted, and forced cows to drink it through their nose. We also squirted it in a duck's eyes. Then we ran out of cologne and just started punching the duck." The cologne, now available in stores, features an ivory bottle stopper and comes in a genuine tiger-skin pouch.
 
2013-07-07 12:08:25 AM
FTA: Why should those greedy disabled veterans be able to vote?


I don't often say this - in fact I don't think I ever have before - but seriously, Mr. Nugent: Go die in a fire.

You don't even deserve U.S. citizenship after that. GTFO, motherf***er. Go live in Somalia and then you can have all the guns you want in your survival-of-the-fittest libertarian paradise.
 
2013-07-07 12:13:54 AM
Ok, I take that back. Subby's headline was misleading. Nugent did not actually say those things. Only the part about the welfare.
 
2013-07-07 01:10:21 AM
Nugent shouldn't be allowed to vote.

And he should have to smash all of his guitars onstage as penance for the incredible childish bullshiat he's been spewing the past few years.
 
2013-07-07 02:18:35 AM

Peki: Men, if the issue is abortion.

Everything else is fair game.



I'm not gonna hate on you for that, and I am a male that understands an unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy and the woman usually has most of the burden.  Please consider this though.  If a woman chooses to have sex, does she not bear any responsibility at all for her decision?  If it is wrong for her to birth a child and gently suffocate it wouldn't it be wrong at some point to terminate a pregnancy when there are infertile couples that would give an infant a great upbringing?
 
2013-07-07 02:42:58 AM

Kittypie070: I would like to see Texas administer a lethal injection to a corporation as a penalty for crime.


Live on pay per view. It would be worth $29.95 to see, gather all my friends around the big screen, have them chip in, and DVR it so that I could watch again and again and again.

And eat caramel popcorn.
 
2013-07-07 02:52:51 AM

knbwhite: Peki: Men, if the issue is abortion.

Everything else is fair game.


I'm not gonna hate on you for that, and I am a male that understands an unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy and the woman usually has most of the burden.  Please consider this though.  If a woman chooses to have sex, does she not bear any responsibility at all for her decision?  If it is wrong for her to birth a child and gently suffocate it wouldn't it be wrong at some point to terminate a pregnancy when there are infertile couples that would give an infant a great upbringing?



There are plenty of already born babies dreaming of being adopted by those infertile couples you mention, so those couples are in fact irrelevant to the discussion.. Also, there is, in fact, a massive difference between a developing cluster of cells and a brought-to-term-and-birthed living baby.  Your conflation of the two is transparently dishonest.

Seriously though, how did a thread about pants shiatting draft dodger Ted Nugent turn into an abortion debate?
 
2013-07-07 03:13:12 AM
Anyone who read that article and didn't catch that it was sarcasm, especially at #5, is a little wound up.

Wound up heads tend to asplode.

For the record, this link was submitted with UNLIKELY tag, whoever greenlit it changed it to INTERESTING.
 
2013-07-07 03:41:40 AM
Fark Nugent, fark the guy who wrote this list, and fark the subby that thought I'd agree with ANY of those let alone three of them.

You thought there was a 60% chance I'd agree to remove the vote from VETERANS?! Come over here so I can kill you until you're immortal and then kill you again.
 
2013-07-07 05:10:57 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?


you may want what they do
but you cant eat it wear it or take it home with you
they produce nothing
you might want thier service but a hooker provides service too
thats not a product
cops might reduce loss of a product so they might claim a share of that
teachers might (sometimes somewhere) train people to be able to be productive (but ill leave it open how often that happens)
thats not a product either
side issue   how many non productive people (cops, teachers, hair-dressers, politicians, et al ) can be supported by those who produce something

I like the assumption of all value is through actual production. My job involves processing title and insurance work for car sales. Without me filling in all the stupid little forms like an OCD-maniac, the big piles of metal on the lot don't get turned into cash, because the state and the banks would reject contracts that aren't notarized or certified.


by your words i am guessing that you work hard and take an interest in what you do and do it right.
i do appreciate your existence (no snark) and wish more were like you
(that being said)
i would still claim that your service is still not a product / i cant eat it, wear it, or build a home with it
no insult offered, id say the same of a doctor extending my life, because if i spend too much i could well not afford to live
 
2013-07-07 05:17:07 AM

thamike: bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

snip
snip
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of something, happening here.


you could well be right
would you tho agree that there are activities where hard work does not equal production?
 
2013-07-07 05:25:04 AM
veterans should be the only ones allowed to vote.
 
2013-07-07 06:13:33 AM
MJMaloney187:So I went back and re-read the article, then I re-read Nugent's Washington Times piece. Both are pretty full of stupid, but it was clear in Nugent's original piece that he meant welfare in the form of food stamps and housing vouchers. Welfare is commonly defined this way. Salon's article semantically tosses out a homeowner's mortgage deduction as a form of welfare. The article reads like a toddler babbles.

Government assistance with food/clothing/housing/training is a subsidy. The mortgage interest tax deduction is also a subsidy. There is no substantive difference. You're relying on a semantic difference (and misunderstanding welfare as it currently exists) so you can continue looking down your nose at people that can't afford food/housing/clothing for their families without assistance.

As far as the article reading "like a toddler babbles," or not addressing Nugent's ideas, here's the formula for Nugent's argument: X group benefits from Y policy, therefore X should lose right to vote for politicians that protect Y policy. Pretty straight-forward. The article simply substitutes other groups that would be eligible for disenfranchisement under this formula to point out that no one deserves disenfranchisement for simply receiving benefits from the government. You get points for recognizing Nugent's stupidity, but then you lose them for exhibiting Nugent's exact brand of stupid: disenfranchising a select group merely for the fact that they have a vested interest in some particular policy. Only slightly less worse, you miss the whole point of the Salon.com article.

MJMaloney187:And, yes, the world would be a better place if governments were run like my household.

The government is not a household. There is no analogy for the entire government, so no, it would not be a better place if run like your household. And mainly because you even propose that it would be.
 
2013-07-07 06:31:42 AM

HighOnCraic: Gyrfalcon: HighOnCraic: andrewagill: Lionel Mandrake: 1. Ted Nugent
2. Ted Nugent's family
3. People who like Ted Nugent
4. The families of people who like Ted Nugent
5. Ted Nugent

You said Ted Nugent twice.

Maybe he likes Ted Nugent.

Nobody likes Ted Nugent.

Sorry, I was going for the not so obscure "Blazing Saddles" joke.


I wanted to respond with a take on the "nobody doesn't like Sara Lee", but I couldn't think of one.
 
2013-07-07 08:46:57 AM

bindlestiff2600: thamike: bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

snip
snip
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of something, happening here.

you could well be right
would you tho agree that there are activities where hard work does not equal production?


Apparently so.
 
2013-07-07 08:52:16 AM
People receiving government assistance should get a vote the counts as 1/2.


Otherwise we're ultimately doomed, because the genius of Obama is that he uses massive databases and polling to identify what individual groups want and to give it to them.  We now have multigenerational families without any shame in receiving handouts for their entire lives.

When the people discover they can vote themselves money, it will herald the end of the Republic.

The goal of the Democratic Party is to get as many people as possible on government rolls as possible, receiving monthly checks, and then. assure them that as long as they vote Democrat, thechecks will keep coming.

And if you protest, after paying into the ponzi scheme and being forced to take money out, they'll point their finger at you, like the nasty pea-brained liberal framers in these threads, for opposing socialism while collecting social security and Medicare.

Social security started small and look at it now.
 
2013-07-07 08:55:18 AM

HighOnCraic: andrewagill: Lionel Mandrake: 1. Ted Nugent
2. Ted Nugent's family
3. People who like Ted Nugent
4. The families of people who like Ted Nugent
5. Ted Nugent

You said Ted Nugent twice.

Maybe he likes Ted Nugent.


Does that mean he shouldn't be able to vote?
 
2013-07-07 08:56:03 AM

Animatronik: People receiving government assistance should get a vote the counts as 1/2.


Otherwise we're ultimately doomed, because the genius of Obama is that he uses massive databases and polling to identify what individual groups want and to give it to them.  We now have multigenerational families without any shame in receiving handouts for their entire lives.

When the people discover they can vote themselves money, it will herald the end of the Republic.

The goal of the Democratic Party is to get as many people as possible on government rolls as possible, receiving monthly checks, and then. assure them that as long as they vote Democrat, thechecks will keep coming.

And if you protest, after paying into the ponzi scheme and being forced to take money out, they'll point their finger at you, like the nasty pea-brained liberal framers in these threads, for opposing socialism while collecting social security and Medicare.

Social security started small and look at it now.


People receiving government assistance meaning farmers, veterans, senoirs, and the military-industrial complex, right?
 
2013-07-07 11:06:54 AM

Animatronik: People receiving government assistance should get a vote the counts as 1/2.


Why would you only want half a vote?
 
2013-07-07 12:02:52 PM
Groups of people who shouldn't be allowed to tell me who shouldn't be allowed to vote:

1. Ted Nugent.
 
2013-07-07 12:04:44 PM
If you think about it, everyone having an equal vote is pretty flawed. I am not sure how to figure out who votes, but a huge segment of the population is ignorant and stupid.
 
2013-07-07 12:39:52 PM

clambam:

cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Why is it when you guys want to defend yourselves from charges of racism and sexism you have to dig back a hundred years or more to find something worth bragging about? "Sure we want to rape you with a plastic dildo if you dare to ask for an abortion, but look how awesome we were in 1919! And, yeah, of course we want to disenfranchise blacks and Latinos now, but wasn't what we did in 1865 totally awesome? Where's your sense of gratitude?" In point of fact the repub Party has done nothing of value to the country since Teddy Roosevelt's day. At best caretaker repub presidents like Eisenhower or Bush I didn't make things worse. Go away. No one will miss you.

I'm not a fan of Republicans, but history is what it is...  The Democrats formed and supported the KKK to keep blacks from voting.  Your idea that one has to go back to the time when the Democratic KKK was terrorizing blacks to find Republicans on the right (correct) side of this issue is simply wrong.  Both JFK and LBJ were exceptions to the rule -- the difficult part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was getting the Democrats to vote for it.  The worst of that was getting it out of the Rules Committee, where chairman Howard Smith (D) said he would keep it bottled up indefinitely, so that it would never be up for a vote.  After LBJ had several TV talks, invoking the then year-old assassination of JFK to goad the public, when Congress returned after their winter recess, it was clear that the public truly wanted it passed, and it was released for a vote, and passed, with a good deal more Republican support than Democratic support.

And if you think that Democrats' recent realization that most black voters have no more knowledge of history than you do, and can be reliably farmed for Democratic votes by constant increases in the welfare rolls, and ever-expanding benefits and entitlement programs is "helping" blacks, have a word with Bill Cosby.  The welfare mentality of "those poor black folks can't survive without us white people giving them money" is possibly the most damaging thing ever done to blacks in this country.  It has pushed many of them into single-parent households, ensuring that most black males grow up without a reasonable male role model, and sapped their initiative while giving them a self-image which reeks of inadequacy.  If you were to try to design a system to rip apart and destroy American blacks,  I doubt you could design a more brutal system than the current welfare-dependency model.  And this is understood by Democrats, who are just as racist as their KKK forebears -- only they can cloak it now with a veneer of "trying to help."  And they still have their negroes on the plantation -- only their votes are the crop now, instead of cotton.


On the show "All in the Family," Archie Bunker was a Republican -- but the vast majority of people I've known who were Archie-act-alikes have been Democrats.  The show was fictional, and written by hard leftists, so of course they made Archie a Republican.  That's typical -- after all, that's what you're doing here -- trying to paint the KKK, anti-civil rights party as the NON-racists.  That's good Alinsky strategy.   Dishonest as Hell, but good strategy.

 
2013-07-07 12:47:42 PM

GeneralJim: I'm not a fan of Republicans, but history is what it is...


Apparently you cleared yours.
 
2013-07-07 02:12:58 PM

thamike: GeneralJim: I'm not a fan of Republicans, but history is what it is...

Apparently you cleared yours.


OhSnap.jpg
 
2013-07-07 02:13:59 PM

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.


THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

Your financial station doesn't change your citizenship. Fark that moron. I also like how he says people on welfare shouldn't be able to vote for "tax increases" like really ever get to vote on taxes ever...
 
2013-07-07 02:36:37 PM

GeneralJim: clambam: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Why is it when you guys want to defend yourselves from charges of racism and sexism you have to dig back a hundred years or more to find something worth bragging about? "Sure we want to rape you with a plastic dildo if you dare to ask for an abortion, but look how awesome we were in 1919! And, yeah, of course we want to disenfranchise blacks and Latinos now, but wasn't what we did in 1865 totally awesome? Where's your sense of gratitude?" In point of fact the repub Party has done nothing of value to the country since Teddy Roosevelt's day. At best caretaker repub presidents like Eisenhower or Bush I didn't make things worse. Go away. No one will miss you.
I'm not a fan of Republicans, but history is what it is...  The Democrats formed and supported the KKK to keep blacks from voting.  Your idea that one has to go back to the time when the Democratic KKK was terrorizing blacks to find Republicans on the right (correct) side of this issue is simply wrong.  Both JFK and LBJ were exceptions to the rule -- the difficult part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was getting the Democrats to vote for it.  The worst of that was getting it out of the Rules Committee, where chairman Howard Smith (D) said he would keep it bottled up indefinitely, so that it would never be up for a vote.  After LBJ had several TV talks, invoking the then year-old assassination of JFK to goad the public, when Congress returned after their winter recess, it was clear that the public truly wanted it passed, and it was released for a vote, and passed, with a good deal more Republican support than Democratic support.
And if you think that Democrats' recent realization that most black voters have no more knowledge of history than you do, and can be reliably farmed for Democratic votes by constant increases in the welfare rolls, and ever-expanding benefits and entitlement programs is "helping" blacks, have a word with Bill Cosby.  The welfare mentality of "those poor black folks can't survive without us white people giving them money" is possibly the most damaging thing ever done to blacks in this country.  It has pushed many of them into single-parent households, ensuring that most black males grow up without a reasonable male role model, and sapped their initiative while giving them a self-image which reeks of inadequacy.  If you were to try to design a system to rip apart and destroy American blacks,  I doubt you could design a more brutal system than the current welfare-dependency model.  And this is understood by Democrats, who are just as racist as their KKK forebears -- only they can cloak it now with a veneer of "trying to help."  And they still have their negroes on the plantation -- only their votes are the crop now, instead of cotton.
On the show "All in the Family," Archie Bunker was a Republican -- but the vast majority of people I've known who were Archie-act-alikes have been Democrats.  The show was fictional, and written by hard leftists, so of course they made Archie a Republican.  That's typical -- after all, that's what you're doing here -- trying to paint the KKK, anti-civil rights party as the NON-racists.  That's good Alinsky strategy.   Dishonest as Hell, but good strategy.


Southern racist Democrats all became Republicans. That was the Southern Strategy of the GOP.
 
2013-07-07 02:50:31 PM

MJMaloney187: People who are on welfare are no different than children.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-07 04:44:17 PM

GeneralJim: the difficult part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was getting the Democrats to vote for it. The worst of that was getting it out of the Rules Committee, where chairman Howard Smith (D) said he would keep it bottled up indefinitely, so that it would never be up for a vote. After LBJ had several TV talks, invoking the then year-old assassination of JFK to goad the public, when Congress returned after their winter recess, it was clear that the public truly wanted it passed, and it was released for a vote, and passed, with a good deal more Republican support than Democratic support.


Nonsense.  The Republicans couldn't force the Democrats to vote for the civil rights act; they didn't have the numbers.  The Democrats had a large majority in the House, and a larger majority in the Senate.  Sure, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for it, (mainly because they held only ten Southern seats in the House and 1 Southern seat in the Senate), but that's not how bills are passed.  In actual numbers, a larger number of Democrats voted for the civil rights act.  The Southern wing of the Democratic Party barely exists anymore.  When you discuss the Solid South and its horrible record on race relations, keep in mind that you're talking about the base of the Republican Party.


By party
The original House version:[16]
    Democratic Party: 152-96   (61-39%)
    Republican Party: 138-34   (80-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[17]
    Democratic Party: 44-23   (66-34%)
    Republican Party: 27-6   (82-18%)
The Senate version:[16]
    Democratic Party: 46-21   (69-31%)
    Republican Party: 27-6   (82-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
    Democratic Party: 153-91   (63-37%)
    Republican Party: 136-35   (80-20%)
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
    Southern Democrats: 7-87   (7-93%)
    Southern Republicans: 0-10   (0-100%)
    Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94-6%)
    Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85-15%)
The Senate version:
    Southern Democrats: 1-20   (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
    Southern Republicans: 0-1   (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)
    Northern Democrats: 45-1   (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
    Northern Republicans: 27-5   (84-16%)
 
2013-07-07 04:56:52 PM

GeneralJim: clambam: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Why is it when you guys want to defend yourselves from charges of racism and sexism you have to dig back a hundred years or more to find something worth bragging about? "Sure we want to rape you with a plastic dildo if you dare to ask for an abortion, but look how awesome we were in 1919! And, yeah, of course we want to disenfranchise blacks and Latinos now, but wasn't what we did in 1865 totally awesome? Where's your sense of gratitude?" In point of fact the repub Party has done nothing of value to the country since Teddy Roosevelt's day. At best caretaker repub presidents like Eisenhower or Bush I didn't make things worse. Go away. No one will miss you.
I'm not a fan of Republicans, but history is what it is...  The Democrats formed and supported the KKK to keep blacks from voting.  Your idea that one has to go back to the time when the Democratic KKK was terrorizing blacks to find Republicans on the right (correct) side of this issue is simply wrong.  Both JFK and LBJ were exceptions to the rule -- the difficult part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was getting the Democrats to vote for it.  The worst of that was getting it out of the Rules Committee, where chairman Howard Smith (D) said he would keep it bottled up indefinitely, so that it would never be up for a vote.  After LBJ had several TV talks, invoking the then year-old assassination of JFK to goad the public, when Congress returned after their winter recess, it was clear that the public truly wanted it passed, and it was released for a vote, and passed, with a good deal more Republican support than Democratic support.
And if you think that Democrats ...


Maybe you can find "The Emerging Republican Majority" on Amazon and find out how Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat movement paved the way for segregationists to abandon the Democratic Party and begin voting for Republicans (at the presidential level at first).
 
2013-07-07 05:02:21 PM
1) People who don't pay taxes.

"No taxation without representation" should work the other way around as well.
 
2013-07-07 05:16:47 PM

Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.


OK so taxation without representation is bad, but collecting a tax when you vote (poll tax) is bad too so it looks to me like the common element is taxation which some people do seem to think is always bad so maybe the representation bit is really besides the point.
 
2013-07-07 05:21:10 PM

TerminalEchoes: 1) People who don't pay taxes.

"No taxation without representation" should work the other way around as well.


Congrats, you've just opened up United States elections to every person on the planet.

/tourists just got a vote
//unintended consequences for the win!
 
2013-07-07 06:07:41 PM
GeneralJim:

**green with envy**

Hang in there, little buddy

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-07 06:20:32 PM

Peki: TerminalEchoes: 1) People who don't pay taxes.

"No taxation without representation" should work the other way around as well.

Congrats, you've just opened up United States elections to every person on the planet.

/tourists just got a vote
//unintended consequences for the win!


...shiat.
 
2013-07-07 09:50:57 PM

rzrwiresunrise: Government assistance with food/clothing/housing/training is a subsidy. The mortgage interest tax deduction is also a subsidy.


No, the former is a subsidy/expenditure and the latter is a tax exemption. Words have meaning.

That said, I have no problem with the concept of welfare...a few bad apples can't be used as an excuse to destroy a safety net that has benefited plenty of people who went on to contribute greatly to society.

/also, ending the mortgage interest exemption would create a mortgage crisis overnight if it wasn't managed properly
 
2013-07-07 10:18:06 PM

Sgt Otter: yelmrog: thamike: cman: Are you serious?

You have to earn the right to ask this question without receiving immediate peals of laughter, Mr. I Slept Through the Southern Strategy Section of the Color-My-Lunch Menu at Cracker Barrel.

The Southern Strategy does not exist to anyone on the right these days.  It never happened. The GOP has always been the party of freedom.  Always.

We have always been at war blah blah blah...

[www.sciway.net image 220x268]

"Hello, friends, Sen. Strom Thurmond here.  If you're not familiar with me, I ran in 1948 as the candidate for The Segregation Party, and I even frequently peppered my stump speeches with the N-Bomb.  Even though I hated Truman for integrating the U.S. Army, I ran for Senate as a Democrat.  Now, in 1964, Democratic President LBJ, working with a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats in Congress, passed the Civil Rights Act.  I tried to filibuster that damn thing for a record-setting 24 hours, but eventually even my racist-ass got tired.

Shortly after, I switched my party affiliation to Republican.  Which was, I assure you, is nothing more than a coincidence.  Honest, smelly, red-skin, drunk-off-their-heathen-ass Injun."

knbwhite: Peki: Men, if the issue is abortion.

Everything else is fair game.


I'm not gonna hate on you for that, and I am a male that understands an unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy and the woman usually has most of the burden.  Please consider this though.  If a woman chooses to have sex, does she not bear any responsibility at all for her decision?  If it is wrong for her to birth a child and gently suffocate it wouldn't it be wrong at some point to terminate a pregnancy when there are infertile couples that would give an infant a great upbringing?


Emphasis mine.

She IS taking responsibility. Just because it seems convenient to you (glossing over the cost, the time, either taking medication or having someone root around her uterus, and all the other assorted crap involved) does not mean it was convenient, easy or spur of the moment to her.

This line of reasoning - "They brought it on themselves, they should bear the responsibility" - is about as intelligent as saying someone who accidentally shot themselves should "bear the responsibility" and not seek medical treatment. A kid blows his fingers off playing with firecrackers? No trip to the ER for you, you little shiat, take responsibility. Walk it off. Chain smoker gets lung cancer? Deal with it.

/And just to stave off the smartasses, don't bother arguing they SHOULD. They (and we as a society) don't and no one's picketing outside of ERs protesting the treatment of idiots that Darwin barely missed.
 
2013-07-07 10:19:13 PM
Annnd this is what I get for not previewing my posts.
 
2013-07-07 11:51:09 PM

ayrsayle: s.


I blame half of it on the interface.

/see?
//and yes, I agree with your point about abortion too. The mistake for me was getting pregnant. The abortion WAS the consequence (why people don't look at it that way, I'll never know).
 
Displayed 299 of 299 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report