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 298
    More: Interesting, Ted Nugent, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, vote, paycheck to paycheck, tax exemption  
•       •       •

13041 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jul 2013 at 11:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 298 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report