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 89
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-06 08:06:48 AM
17 votes:
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 08:20:38 AM
12 votes:
Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.
2013-07-06 08:18:14 AM
8 votes:
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 12:48:12 PM
7 votes:
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 08:33:23 AM
7 votes:

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 08:16:33 AM
7 votes:
Subby fails at reading comprehension. The list isn't from Nugent.
2013-07-06 12:23:50 PM
6 votes:

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 08:20:22 AM
6 votes:
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 08:13:54 AM
5 votes:

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 12:43:44 PM
4 votes:

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 12:39:42 PM
4 votes:

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 08:23:24 AM
4 votes:

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 01:01:00 PM
3 votes:

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 12:34:41 PM
3 votes:

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 11:46:00 AM
3 votes:
How about we just stop pretending that Ted Nugent is relevant.
2013-07-06 08:27:04 AM
3 votes:

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 09:35:20 PM
2 votes:

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 01:32:22 PM
2 votes:

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 01:02:40 PM
2 votes:

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 12:09:16 PM
2 votes:
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 12:07:51 PM
2 votes:
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 11:50:05 AM
2 votes:
i1284.photobucket.com
2013-07-06 11:27:07 AM
2 votes:
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 11:02:43 AM
2 votes:

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 09:26:46 AM
2 votes:

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 09:23:11 AM
2 votes:

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 08:40:56 AM
2 votes:
Headline brought to you by:

menofmind.com
2013-07-07 02:36:37 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-07-06 10:53:29 PM
1 votes:

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 10:22:54 PM
1 votes:

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 09:42:19 PM
1 votes:

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 09:26:05 PM
1 votes:

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 08:48:38 PM
1 votes:
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 08:41:25 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-07-06 08:11:16 PM
1 votes:

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 07:08:10 PM
1 votes:

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 03:31:44 PM
1 votes:

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 02:27:29 PM
1 votes:

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 02:00:48 PM
1 votes:
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 01:53:28 PM
1 votes:

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 01:50:11 PM
1 votes:

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 01:46:14 PM
1 votes:

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 01:23:00 PM
1 votes:

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 01:14:47 PM
1 votes:

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 01:01:03 PM
1 votes:
1) People who aren't me.
2013-07-06 12:56:52 PM
1 votes:
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 12:53:03 PM
1 votes:

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18



3) Members of the Westboro Baptist Church
2013-07-06 12:52:18 PM
1 votes:

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 12:47:46 PM
1 votes:
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 12:47:44 PM
1 votes:

Mangoose: man who wants an abortion


Should probably have just kept it in his pants.
2013-07-06 12:46:56 PM
1 votes:

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 12:45:53 PM
1 votes:

cman: Nice deflection.


Lame projection.
2013-07-06 12:43:31 PM
1 votes:
>> 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 12:33:45 PM
1 votes:

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 12:31:25 PM
1 votes:

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 12:30:56 PM
1 votes:

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


... back?
2013-07-06 12:23:20 PM
1 votes:
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 12:22:44 PM
1 votes:

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 12:19:45 PM
1 votes:
 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 12:19:10 PM
1 votes:

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 12:18:34 PM
1 votes:

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 12:18:18 PM
1 votes:

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 12:13:09 PM
1 votes:

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 12:09:36 PM
1 votes:
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 12:09:35 PM
1 votes:
Are they American citizens?

Yes?

Then farking LET THEM VOTE.
2013-07-06 12:04:27 PM
1 votes:
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 12:04:14 PM
1 votes:
6. Illiterates, like Subby.
2013-07-06 12:00:31 PM
1 votes:

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 11:57:48 AM
1 votes:
Nuget, eh? Isn't he dead or in jail or something?
2013-07-06 11:54:59 AM
1 votes:

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 11:53:40 AM
1 votes:

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 11:53:33 AM
1 votes:
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 11:52:50 AM
1 votes:
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 11:48:20 AM
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why isn't that asshole dead yet?


Or in prison like he promised.
2013-07-06 11:36:47 AM
1 votes:

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 11:34:25 AM
1 votes:

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 11:10:44 AM
1 votes:

Sgt Otter: Yep. This guy:


I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the staggering ignorance of history.
2013-07-06 10:55:42 AM
1 votes:

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 10:38:52 AM
1 votes:

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 10:10:43 AM
1 votes:

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 09:50:28 AM
1 votes:
27 comments in and I don't see any "heads asploding," subs. Maybe you misread us or the article?
2013-07-06 09:44:01 AM
1 votes:
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 09:24:21 AM
1 votes:

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 09:22:01 AM
1 votes:

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 09:05:06 AM
1 votes:
Men, if the issue is abortion.

Everything else is fair game.
2013-07-06 09:03:39 AM
1 votes:

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 08:54:36 AM
1 votes:

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 08:44:36 AM
1 votes:

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 08:38:59 AM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 89 of 89 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report