Tea party opening speaker suggests blacks be kept from voting

There definitely should be a test, not just a literacy test but a civics test. You should be able to prove you know what you are voting for in order to be allowed to vote. This is not racist, unless you are saying that all blacks can't read, in which case THAT is racist. This is just trying to prevent the dummies from voting for whom they are told.

I'm sure if they did it they would make the test so easy that even dummies could pass it, because they want them dummies voting! Dey botes for who dey's tole!

Originally posted by brainwrek

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
Some of you need to crack a history book to get context of why this is racial. I don't think any of you get it.

en.wikipedia.org...

At the least this was an underlying racist idea, and at the most this guy was a complete idiot who has no concept of the history of the government in which he himself was a leader.

And this is why the Tea Party needs to die a hard death. It's Faux Americans who are nothing but angry scared white people.

The racist card always comes out when people like you have no intelligent rebuttal.

Can you cite any reason why a literacy test shouldnt be required of ALL voters?

I'll save you the time. You cant.

Much like the illegal immigration argument, or people who dislike Obama, people always resort to the bottom of the barrel when they cannot argue logic, fact, or common sense.

Because I don't trust the government to put together a fair test or to not take advantage of this power like they do every other one they have. And because the concept of limiting the freedoms of tax paying citizens or creating a secondary class frightens me and seems counter to everything America is supposed to be. I mean we have a clear example of all of this in our history not more than 50 years ago. Yet you people seem to have no concept of your own history. Not to mention you people cry like bitches at the thought of e-voting machines because they're easy to manipulate. Yet you want the government to openly tamper with the voting process in the same way? This is completely the American ideal though. Fix the problem by doing the most ass backwards thing possible. Thanks for your frightening elitist prejudicial views though.

Oh guess what? I did.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by CuriousSkeptic]

Besides, there will be no test. They want the dummies voting. Now that corporations can outright pay for the political campaigns, next time around you won't even know the NAME of the guy who is NOT sponsored by Wal-Mart. For that matter, they ALL will be sponsored by the Fed one way or another. And like most dummies, you can tell them all as big a lie as you want, once you tell it enough times it's accepted as truth. Whoever has the most money gets to tell their lies the most times.

reply to post by CuriousSkeptic


Who are you referring to when you say "you people"????

I support e-voting machines, as long as they are audited by an independent 3rd party.

Which tax paying citizens would you be referring to? Upwards of 40% of Americans dont pay a dime in income tax, why should they have any say how OTHER peoples money is spent?

When one person = one vote, the only leaders are those who seek to be popular in their opinions, and accuracy is interpreted through what others want, not what is correct (it was against this phenomenon that the profoundly individualistic Romantic movement in literature arose). Those who speak unpopular truths, and rise against the assent of the masses, are seen as motivated by personal desire for power and slammed down as best they can be. Democracy admits every kind of dissident except one that profoundly criticizes the system; those who encourage people to "buy green" and "vote blue" and do other ineffective things are OK. Democracy coopts all criticism into neutralized variants.

You are likely to want family, friends, a solid job, and a good community in which to live. You may wish to make art or political statements. These "freedoms" are guaranteed to you by a fascist state, with the caveat that those using their "freedoms" to promote destructive or selfish ideologies will be asked to leave. In that condition, you have more "freedom" than now, in that instead of living in a society constantly split by internal argument and drama and the expense of other people's "freedom" leading to selfishness or parasitism or destructive acts, you will live in a sane and comfortable place in which it will be easier to live and raise a family if you so choose.

Democracy is the worst system of government to ever have been created. It places faith in the majority to decide what is best for them and elects those that provide 'bread and circuses' rather than viable solutions. Time to learn from it's failures and move on.

This was a "National Tea Party" convention, of which our local Tea Party was completely unaffiliated.

In general, you have a lot of small "Tea Party" groups around the country, but no central organization, and therefore anybody and everybody is using the name.

I can speak for my local group and Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck are not doing us any favors!! O'Reilly is questionable, but not a nutjob like the rest. All the "help" from all of these talking heads is killing the grassroots momentum that we had back in September.

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic

 

Who are you referring to when you say "you people"????

I support e-voting machines, as long as they are audited by an independent 3rd party.

Which tax paying citizens would you be referring to? Upwards of 40% of Americans dont pay a dime in income tax, why should they have any say how OTHER peoples money is spent?

LOL, nice try on the reverse racism card but sorry my glow in the dark brother I be white too.

I guess election day can become like Halloween. Something we all dress up for but has no significance or impact. At least in your world view.

The citizens that have to live under the laws and policies set forth by those that are funded by those tax dollars.

reply to post by getreadyalready


While I am by no means convinced that this is the case; have you not considered that some Tea Parties are representatives of opposing ideology?

Grass roots cannot be nationalized it seems without becoming victim to it's own objectives.

reply to post by CuriousSkeptic


Wasnt attempting any reverse racism, I was curious as to what idiotic generalization you made by saying you people.

So, who were you referring to?

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

While I am by no means convinced that this is the case; have you not considered that some Tea Parties are representatives of opposing ideology?

Grass roots cannot be nationalized it seems without becoming victim to it's own objectives.

Agreed. The movement started out as common folks with a common element. But, once they got past that, they realized that, aside from the common element, they have opposing views on everything else.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Maxmars


What you say is certainly the case. Even within one group of a Tea Party there are conflicting idealogies. We are a victim of the press and the culture. Too many people believe that to drill for oil you have to kill trees and baby seals, and that to allow gay marriage you have to kill religion.

Hopefully most of the educated people on ATS realize these are false dichotomies, but as a group of people attempts to organize and oppose the status quo, TPTB start to push those buttons and align people against one another based on false presumptions.

Imagine, here in N. Florida along the most beautiful beaches in the world (the Emerald Coast), we have Jimmy Buffet fanatic hippies that hate Bush, hate Obama, hate taxes, and want change. Alongside them are Southern Redneck Roughnecks that hate Bush, hate Obama, hate taxes and want change. They get along fine and they are willing to fight for what they believe. They print signs, they turn out in record numbers at the Capital Building, they shoot off fireworks and give Rousing Speeches on the steps....it is beautiful!

Now.....a month later, some power company wants to build a bio-plant in the county. Sounds great. It is bio after all. It is renewable. It is cheaper. It will create jobs. But, some do-gooders decide it will bring pollution, or it will encumber the city and county governments too much. Then millions of dollars are spent on Environment Impact studies, and millions more are spent with both sides creating emotional TV and Radio spots until the issue is dead and well-meaning people on both sides now hate one another.

In this scenario, feel free to substitute Off-Shore drilling, or regulations on Boat Props, or regulations on Hunting Limits, or Gun Control, or Term-Limits with the same result . . . . . NOTHING!

It is just too difficult for the people involved to turn off the TV, turn off the Radio, and look over at their buddy on the BBQ grill and say, "You know what, we both want better, cheaper, cleaner power. We both want less crime. We both want more nature. We both love the beach. How can we both get what we want??????"

reply to post by brainwrek


Those who would be offended by it. Or make mention of it.

For those who are against this idea.....

Do you support convicted felons voting?

How about those dishonorably discharged from the military?

Voting is a privilege, and as such, it can be taken away as long as it isnt because of race, gender, or age.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
It is just too difficult for the people involved to turn off the TV, turn off the Radio, and look over at their buddy on the BBQ grill and say, "You know what, we both want better, cheaper, cleaner power. We both want less crime. We both want more nature. We both love the beach. How can we both get what we want??????"

Absolutely! On paper it doesn't seem so difficult. Let's look at what we all DO have in common and build a platform on that. Drop the issues that the right & left oppose each other on, as they can be dealt with at a later time...but hey, let's quit stalling on the agreements we all have and get something done..

Leave left issues to the left and right issues to the right...and when the day comes that those issues are important to the vast majority...well, then we can vote in a right or left majority into office to take care of the issue.

In the mean time, we sit here and suffer over the same tired debates that have continued in Washington since well before our time.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Aggie Man


Aggie,

I am at work, and I probably won't be online all weekend, but you are exactly right!

We need a unified and simplified platform and we need some people of integrity to put that platform out to the people.

I would love to get a U2U from you so we could work on such a thing, and I would love to see a new thread about it. Such an idea would be great fodder for a new periodical that I am kicking around here locally, "Modern Sense."

It would make great fodder for debate, and Tea Party rallies, and school assemblies.

We need a true "Uniter" like so many hoped Obama would be.

We need candidates of true and strong ethical character that are not afraid to tell the constituents the truth, even the hard truth.

We need candidates that refuse to look at polls, and insist on making decisions based on fact and experience and moral rectitude.

One of the most destructive aspects of modern society is its adoption of all activism under its wings. It endorses political activity but demands that it norm itself to the public format favored by all other forms of political activity. Much like it turns all art not explicitly for profit into a "hobby," it turns political activism into self-representation. It is assumed that all political groups act in self-interest with an eye toward future material reward. For this reason, it is not surprising that no movements to increase existential joy have ever made it to the polls.

most of our "activism" ultimately becomes the same sort of moral pretense that allows the crowd to detest any who dare rise above the morass. Our activism changes little because it is not designed for effect, but to make us feel better about being unique and different in what we choose. In the intraverted society, where the inner self is denied, our actions reward the external self under the guise of helping society as a whole.

It is this same moral pretense that causes democratic nations to wage "well-intentioned" wars to spread democracy. Everyone else is ignorant and needs our help and we feel that warm glow of pride when we bomb their cities, destroy their cultures and invade them with our product-oriented lifestyle. We're helping them, we reason, and if it also eliminates a potential enemy, it must be a bonus. We feign surprise when they resist us, having looked carefully at the neurotic and unstable life we represent, and then as if wounded use their rejection to justify even more violence.

Originally posted by brainwrek
For those who are against this idea.....

Do you support convicted felons voting?

How about those dishonorably discharged from the military?

Voting is a privilege, and as such, it can be taken away as long as it isnt because of race, gender, or age.

convicted felons? yes...once they have done the time or whatever has been satisfied, then they should have all their rights fully restored...at least after the first time..repeat offenders maybe not.

Dishonorably discharged...would need a case by case basis. ultimately you get dishonorable discharge for what equates to a first class felony. DD is part of the "sentence" recieved. very gray area. For instance, a pacifist whom deserted their post during peacetime because he simply hated the military for whatever reason is simply given the DD. I dont see any reason to keep them forever out of the voting system.
what a complex question overall...only because quite often the DD is the only consequence for what otherwise would be a imprisonable offense with clear start and end times for civilians.

Perhaps a choice for both listed above...go without voting for life, or have a extra year tacked onto your sentence and come out with all your civil rights fully restored (or a percentage of time to begin with)...and let them make the choice.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I don't agree with the IQ test.

It would disqualify a number of those who have served in the armed forces.

That is something I simply cannot accept. All of those who served should always have the right to vote.

To serve in the armed forces, you must also have a IQ test to begin with. They dont want any dips@$t playing with their expensive guns and toys.

I believe they require a IQ of 90...however that may have gone up.

Anyhow, you can disagree if you want, I think your wrong, you think I am wrong...perfect difference in opinion...beauty of the freedom of speech and all that stuff.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
When one person = one vote, the only leaders are those who seek to be popular in their opinions, and accuracy is interpreted through what others want, not what is correct (it was against this phenomenon that the profoundly individualistic Romantic movement in literature arose). Those who speak unpopular truths, and rise against the assent of the masses, are seen as motivated by personal desire for power and slammed down as best they can be. Democracy admits every kind of dissident except one that profoundly criticizes the system; those who encourage people to "buy green" and "vote blue" and do other ineffective things are OK. Democracy coopts all criticism into neutralized variants.

You are likely to want family, friends, a solid job, and a good community in which to live. You may wish to make art or political statements. These "freedoms" are guaranteed to you by a fascist state, with the caveat that those using their "freedoms" to promote destructive or selfish ideologies will be asked to leave. In that condition, you have more "freedom" than now, in that instead of living in a society constantly split by internal argument and drama and the expense of other people's "freedom" leading to selfishness or parasitism or destructive acts, you will live in a sane and comfortable place in which it will be easier to live and raise a family if you so choose.

Democracy is the worst system of government to ever have been created. It places faith in the majority to decide what is best for them and elects those that provide 'bread and circuses' rather than viable solutions. Time to learn from it's failures and move on.

Sounds like you just want the fascist state. So you should be happy over what is happening. Next stop, Stepford Wives!

The US is not and never has been a democracy. Democracy is mob rule, it is the worst. The US is supposed to be a Constitional Republic. Wonder why ALL the politicians keep calling it a democracy all the time? IT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. They like to keep saying that dropping thousands of tons of explosives and DU is "spreading democracy". If that's spreading democracy, I don';t want any, thanks.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
This was a "National Tea Party" convention, of which our local Tea Party was completely unaffiliated.

In general, you have a lot of small "Tea Party" groups around the country, but no central organization, and therefore anybody and everybody is using the name.

I can speak for my local group and Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck are not doing us any favors!! O'Reilly is questionable, but not a nutjob like the rest. All the "help" from all of these talking heads is killing the grassroots momentum that we had back in September.

THIS is how a Constitutional Republic is SUPPOSED to operate. A lot of small groups called towns or cities, aggregated into States, with no central organization, or rather a VERY WEAK Federal govt, therefore everyone has to play nice together. The day they signed the Constitution, they asked Franklin, "What have you given us?" and he replied, "a Republic, if you can keep one."

There would be NO WARS right now, since over 70 percent of the people are against the wars. But now, no one seems to mind that the sleazebags just ignore what the people want and do whatever they feel like to steal as much money as possible.