Mad props to Megan McCain

[outriding]

I find it kind of ironic that on the same page the right is chastising the left for being elitist, while the right says well if you cannot read you cannot vote.

Even a dog can figure out what it likes and what it doesn't

 

[Robor]

Citizenship and the ability to read/write in English SHOULD be a requirement to vote. I'm not so backwards as to believe that only property owners or people who actually had to pay taxes should be allowed to vote, but I do feel that in order to have some input on how the country is run, you should actually be a part of that country and society as a whole.

Immigrants who refuse to become citizens (or get visas) and who refuse to assimilate into our culture have no place in determining our policy. Ballots should be English-only and you should be required to prove citizenship in order to receive one.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure you have to be a citizen of the US to vote in our elections.

 

[HumblePie]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure you have to be a citizen of the US to vote in our elections.

You are correct, the person you quoted had a really dumb last paragraph.

 

[brencat]

You mean the group that paid Palin $100K to blabber to them? If so, LOL! :awe:

Nothing wrong with throwing a little red meat out there once in a while. As I've said many times in these forums, I will NOT vote for Palin if she is the Repub candidate in 2012. I will stay home. I'm confident however, that the tea party movement is about so much more than Republicans. In fact in many ways it's the antidote to Republican big tent/big govt spending that went on from 2000 - 2006. But if it's shaped wrongly...in the direction of the fundie nut cases like Palin, it will fail.

Hopefully it will continue and grow as a fiscal conservative/socially moderate political movement that is much needed in govt today.

 

[WHAMPOM]

WTF is a "progressive Republican?"

Non-fascist.

 

[HomerJS]

I find it kind of ironic that on the same page the right is chastising the left for being elitist, while the right says well if you cannot read you cannot vote.

Even a dog can figure out what it likes and what it doesn't

Ding...ding we have a winner!

 

[CPA]

Nice, so I guess we can never ever use the literacy test argument for anything because it may be considered racist.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Theodore Roosevelt...

The "last" member of the party of Lincoln, well Eisenhower, but only in his last speech. The rest since then have been in someone's pocket or playing their brand of pocket pool.

 

[OutHouse]

I do. You want to disenfranchise people based on some arbitrary standard.

sorry but if mentally competent somebody cant read in this day in time with the free education that everybody can get then you are too stupid to vote. its not a arbitrary standard.

 

[OutHouse]

Nice, so I guess we can never ever use the literacy test argument for anything because it may be considered racist.

good point, are graduation test racist too?

 

[OutHouse]

Citizenship and the ability to read/write in English SHOULD be a requirement to vote. I'm not so backwards as to believe that only property owners or people who actually had to pay taxes should be allowed to vote, but I do feel that in order to have some input on how the country is run, you should actually be a part of that country and society as a whole.

Immigrants who refuse to become citizens (or get visas) and who refuse to assimilate into our culture have no place in determining our policy. Ballots should be English-only and you should be required to prove citizenship in order to receive one.

you are right immigrants dont, because the cant fricken vote. and i also agree that all ballots should be only in English.

 

[HomerJS]

sorry but if mentally competent somebody cant read in this day in time with the free education that everybody can get then you are too stupid to vote. its not a arbitrary standard.

Let's see literacy tests for voters but no education standards for candidates. Sounds good to me.

http://www.alan.com/2010/01/11/game...now-difference-between-north-and-south-korea/

 

[Craig234]

The problem with what she's doing is that she's trying to fix one thing in a group who wants to do many other things wrong, namely their core value of moving the nation to plutocracy.

It's not surprising - it's sort of 'daddy's little girl' being loyal to the party not considering which party is best to support, but it's supporting a lot of wrong.

The issue isn't 'how to get more minorities in the Republican party by reducing racism', it's how to fix the broken Republican agenda for the rich.

I'm curious how many Republican here, if they felt Republicans stood to gain 10 votes by appealing to racists for every one minority vote they lose, would feel it's very important to reduce that racism.

Is the motive here to get more votes, or to do the right thing even if it lost them votes?

As for Megan, she is trying to get more Republicans despite many other flaws, and that's not good.

A non-racist party for plutocracy is less bad than a racist party for plutocracy, but it's still bad. Of course its also convenient how they used race while it helped them politically, and 'improve' when that changes.

 

[woolfe9999]

The problem with what she's doing is that she's trying to fix one thing in a group who wants to do many other things wrong, namely their core value of moving the nation to plutocracy.

It's not surprising - it's sort of 'daddy's little girl' being loyal to the party not considering which party is best to support, but it's supporting a lot of wrong.

The issue isn't 'how to get more minorities in the Republican party by reducing racism', it's how to fix the broken Republican agenda for the rich.

I'm curious how many Republican here, if they felt Republicans stood to gain 10 votes by appealing to racists for every one minority vote they lose, would feel it's very important to reduce that racism.

Is the motive here to get more votes, or to do the right thing even if it lost them votes?

As for Megan, she is trying to get more Republicans despite many other flaws, and that's not good.

A non-racist party for plutocracy is less bad than a racist party for plutocracy, but it's still bad. Of course its also convenient how they used race while it helped them politically, and 'improve' when that changes.

Well, that's approximately correct. However, I would point out that Meghan is considerably more liberal than your typical republican. She is pretty much a lib across the board on social issues. She is basically arguing for a republican party that jettisons the evangical creed. You point out that she is taking these stances for tactical reasons, and that is partially true, but I see no reason not to take her social liberalism at face value.

- wolf

 

[BoberFett]

Is the motive here to get more votes, or to do the right thing even if it lost them votes?

You seem to think Democrats should do things for votes rather than ethics, why should Republicans do any different?

 

[sandorski]

Nice, so I guess we can never ever use the literacy test argument for anything because it may be considered racist.

In the past, it was used as a tool of Racists.

Voting is a basic Right, people shouldn't even need to Register(of course place of Residence is important and such) to exercise it.

 

[marincounty]

Megan McCain is one of the very few Republicans who is talking any kind of sense. The rest of them are so busy trying to obstruct and score points against Democrats they have lost sight of reality. Democrats have been guilty of this in the past too.

 

[Craig234]

Well, that's approximately correct. However, I would point out that Meghan is considerably more liberal than your typical republican. She is pretty much a lib across the board on social issues. She is basically arguing for a republican party that jettisons the evangical creed. You point out that she is taking these stances for tactical reasons, and that is partially true, but I see no reason not to take her social liberalism at face value.

- wolf

That's not what I'm saying, actually - I think she is 'sincere' in her 'socially liberal' views. I'm criticizing her for improving a still-harmful party to do more harm, instead of opposing it for its other problems.

I consdered and restrained making making an analogy to someone 'rehabilitating' the Nazi Party by demanding it end its anti-Jewish views - but it's still supporting a party for fascism and conquest.

No one's going to disagree their ending their anti-Jewish position isn't an improvement - but fighting FOR an improved Nazi Party is still bad, rather than fighting for a better cause against fascism and conquest, too.

I'm not comparing the Nazis and the Republicans - it's an analogy. The Republicans support many other harmful things than racism and Meghan is recruiting support for those bad things.

 

[woolfe9999]

That's not what I'm saying, actually - I think she is 'sincere' in her 'socially liberal' views. I'm criticizing her for improving a still-harmful party to do more harm, instead of opposing it for its other problems.

I consdered and restrained making making an analogy to someone 'rehabilitating' the Nazi Party by demanding it end its anti-Jewish views - but it's still supporting a party for fascism and conquest.

No one's going to disagree their ending their anti-Jewish position isn't an improvement - but fighting FOR an improved Nazi Party is still bad, rather than fighting for a better cause against fascism and conquest, too.

I'm not comparing the Nazis and the Republicans - it's an analogy. The Republicans support many other harmful things than racism and Meghan is recruiting support for those bad things.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with your logic. I get it. It's that in my view the republican party isn't going away any time soon. It will be part of our mainstream politics, probably until the day I die. Given that this will be the state of affairs, I'd rather see it jettison the racism, not to mention the evangelical social agenda, which includes tearing down the wall of separation between church and state. If Meghan represents a new breed of "young republican" that is more socially liberal, there is more good in that than bad, IMO.

- wolf

 

[coloumb]

How about we just print a picture of who you want to vote for on the voting pamphlet? That way we can cater to illegal immigrants who refuse to learn English...

 

[woolfe9999]

How about we just print a picture of who you want to vote for on the voting pamphlet? That way we can cater to illegal immigrants who refuse to learn English...

Which illegal immigrants are allowed to vote?

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

Which illegal immigrants are allowed to vote?

- wolf

The ones who can read English!

badda bing badda boom

 

[Darwin333]

In this day and age I do not see a problem with having a test to see if you are competent enough to vote.

Are you ok with the political party that you disagree with making the test?

 

[MotF Bane]

That's not what I'm saying, actually - I think she is 'sincere' in her 'socially liberal' views. I'm criticizing her for improving a still-harmful party to do more harm, instead of opposing it for its other problems.

I consdered and restrained making making an analogy to someone 'rehabilitating' the Nazi Party by demanding it end its anti-Jewish views - but it's still supporting a party for fascism and conquest.

No one's going to disagree their ending their anti-Jewish position isn't an improvement - but fighting FOR an improved Nazi Party is still bad, rather than fighting for a better cause against fascism and conquest, too.

I'm not comparing the Nazis and the Republicans - it's an analogy. The Republicans support many other harmful things than racism and Meghan is recruiting support for those bad things.

Godwin's Law defeats Craig Spam.

 

[Craig234]

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with your logic. I get it. It's that in my view the republican party isn't going away any time soon. It will be part of our mainstream politics, probably until the day I die. Given that this will be the state of affairs, I'd rather see it jettison the racism, not to mention the evangelical social agenda, which includes tearing down the wall of separation between church and state. If Meghan represents a new breed of "young republican" that is more socially liberal, there is more good in that than bad, IMO.

- wolf

I understand, but it seems to me some might be being seduced by incremental progress at the expense of the larger picture. We agree it's an improvement, but need to remember the other issues befire issuing an *unequivical* support for her position in part based on the fatalistic assumption that the Republican party isn't going anywhere. If it isn't that doesn't cleanse it of any concerns over its other issues.

I'm ok with saying '9 bad policies is better than 10 bad policies', but not with saying 'oh look at the hero fighting bad policy #10, let's follow her and support that group'.