According to this, Rachel Maddow is just as offensive and punch-worthy as she’s always been.
Well, that’s not exactly what the article says, to be fair. That’s simply my interpretation of it. You can decide. Rachel’s got her boy-shorts in a twist over the Tea Party Convention, and because she’s upset about it, she’s resorted to the standard liberal accusation. “RAAAAAAAACIST!!!!!”
There’s video of this, but I felt it would be cruel to subject you to it on a Superbowl Sunday morning. So I’ll just give you some text-bytes. She said, “The opening speech last night was given by failed presidential candidate, ex-congressman and professional anti-immigrant, Tom Tancredo who started the event off with a bang, a big loud racist bang.”
Here’s what Tom Actually Said, “Mostly because I think we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in the country, people who could not even spell the word, “vote,” or say it in English, put a committed, socialist ideologue in the White House. The name is Barack Hussein Obama.”
I’m trying to understand what’s racist about that statement. Perhaps Rachel can explain.
She said, “Just for reference here, when Tom Tancredo talks about literacy tests, that`s what they used in the south to keep black people from voting before civil rights legislation and court rulings put a stop to that. So the convention opened with a clarion call to bring back the literacy tests for voting. And as you could hear, the tea party convention crowd erupted in cheers at the suggestion, although, to be fair, it was sort of hard to tell exactly what the sounds coming from the crowd meant. They were sort of a little bit muffled by, you know, the white hoods.”
Gawd. “White hoods” – and she seriously doesn’t get why her ratings are in the tank? Tancredo’s long-time “hot-button issue” is immigration. And I don’t disagree with him ONE BIT that voters ought to be able to spell the word “vote” AND say it in English. Then again, I’m one of those RAAAACIST WACKJOBS who think English should be the official language of the US.
The article’s author also lists many of the questions required for people to answer correctly before becoming American citizens. You know, the legal way. Is it racist for us to have the civics test too, Rachel?
But you know – whatever, Rachel – you just keep right on doing what you’re doing. It worked out really well for Air America.
Maddow was right on target on this one.
Yeah – because everyone knows Democrats are the party of equal rights (snort):
http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/
http://www.benjaminbradley.com/politics/you-lie-democrats/
I had to show knowledge of English when I had my residence in the US established. I had to spell “Constitution” and “Missouri.” I demand my money back – the test was much too hard.
I dare say Maddow and Pink Slip have suckled venom off the same teat.
Nice comments. Although they really don’t address Tancredo’s contention that literacy tests should be given before people can vote. As Maddow says, this tests were given in the South (and West) to prevent non-whites from voting.
And which the article points out is TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT.
No one is suggesting (except for you and Rachel, I guess) that non-whites shouldn’t be able to vote. What Tancredo is suggesting is that there should be some basic literacy requirements, which is absolutely reasonable.
Lemme guess – you don’t think there should be a civics test for citizenship, either?
Maddow is and always will be an ignorant moron. She constantly throws FALSE ACCUSATIONS out at people who are on the opposite side of her liberal ideology.
I have a video of her UTTER HYPOCRISY when it comes to the Tea Parties and the way the loony liberals treated Bush.
I’m not quite sure how she’s even still on the air. She doesn’t provide accurate information and even if someone is nuts enough to agree with her opinion, she’s simply not a good journalist in the first place.
“What Tancredo is suggesting is that there should be some basic literacy requirements, which is absolutely reasonable.”
Well, it’s illegal. I guess that would make it unreasonable. It doesn’t matter if someone can read or write. It’s not a requirement to vote. Literacy tests would be abused (we have historical record to prove this–it was used to prevent non-whites from voting), and it would just create another barrier to voting.
There are three different kinds of brains, the one understands things unassisted, the other understands things when shown by others, the third understands neither alone nor with the explanation of others. The first kind is most excellent, the second also excellent, but the third useless. – Machiavelli
Let’s all guess which category Maddow and Pink Slip fall under.
Despite the intended insult, I’m cool with being categorized with Dr Maddow. She’s a pretty smart chick.
Unless race makes you less capable of passing a literacy test (as it statistically did when the South used them), Tom Tancredo’s comments are devoid of racial overtone.
If you believe that race DOES make you less capable of passing the literacy test, perhaps your mirror can give you more indication of who is racist.
Good day.
A “smart chick”? Well, coming from you, that is not saying much. Kind of like pond scum saying that a garden slug is a complex and fascinating creature.
Maddow is an ignorant, bigoted, racist cow. Coming from those of us with brains that actually use them, is right on target.
I see once again Rachel Maddow and Pink slip are displaying their pseudo intellectualism for all the world to see. “I am offended therefore I am!” Both jumped in with both feet first without even looking to see what they were jumping into.
Let’s examine the reason for the law and original ruling. There was a time when it was illegal in this country to teach blacks to read, so one can see where the law stemmed from. Now that is no longer the case. Is Rachel and Pink Slip making an assumption that all minorities are incapable of learning to read and write in English?
What would be the ripple effect if we had people learn to read and write to vote? More minorities would get educated and less would be exploited. I think it is a reasonable test to be tried, because as it is we are really operating with good intentions, and quite frankly it isn’t working. We all know what the road to hell is paved with. This feel good mentality is hamstringing minorities, which keep them in a minority itself, and is holding them back in life.
A nation built by immigrants has to have some sort of unification in their foundation to remain a nation. For the USA it is not based upon race, but language and culture. There was only one thing Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson agreed upon and that is “There are no hyphenated Americans.” We don’t have a shared origin so we must get our unification somewhere.
Lastly, it absolutely defies all logic and reason that you would want someone voting on important issues that effect millions, and some instances the entire world, that has no basic understanding of the issue and it’s effect on people. It defies logic that is, unless you are in the business of manipulating and exploiting the ignorant and their vote.
Look around you and see the effect of not requiring English, not requiring a basic understanding of your environment, and not requiring assimilation. Come to California and I will show you up close and personal what that road is paved with, and the effect on this state.
Majordawg – best comment ever. LOVE.
But, Laurel, dear – logic has always been trumped by ideology. No amount of reasoned argument can ever convince those who think they have monopoly, nay, exclusivity, on truth.
As to the “Doctor” comment – a man wrote to Dear Abby: “You have advised a reader once that if a spouse loses interest in sex, he/she should see a doctor. Well, my wife has lost interest in sex, and she is a doctor. What do I do now?”
Pink Slip is falling for the letters behind a person’s name without actually examining what is coming out of their mouth. But of course this is done selectively by the left since I have heard many of them call plenty of lettered people on the right all sorts of names, including stupid. Dr. Thomas Sowell is an example of that.
Wise up! Information is not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom.
I would also like to point out Pink Slip has gotten downright hostile with genetics 73, who is educated! So any and all titles are selectively used, which says quite a bit about Pink Slip. One is only educated if one agrees with Pink Slip.
“If you believe that race DOES make you less capable of passing the literacy test, perhaps your mirror can give you more indication of who is racist”
I don’t think it’s a question of passing the test, but abusing it’s use. For instance, those that administered the test would often decide who passed based on…let’s say, less than objective reasoning.
Ellie—ouch! Let go of the hate. Love, baby…
Thank you, Laurel… And to think that all my efforts to hide my education have been for naught:)
genetics 73: As always you are correct. What is baffling is the world can crumble beneath the Rachel Maddow’s of the world, and they will still cling to their ideology, replete with excuses. Makes me wonder if they are suicidal.
genectics 73: Never hide your light under a bush.
My God people…is it slightly possible that others may have differing opinions without being horrible or uneducated? Such invective…
We have historical precedent that people used literacy tests to deny others the right to vote based on the color of their skin. What makes you think it’d be different this time? Do you buy the “post-racial” junk that people are peddling?
Pink Slip: “I don’t think it’s a question of passing the test, but abusing it’s use. For instance, those that administered the test would often decide who passed based on…let’s say, less than objective reasoning.”
As always, the glass is half empty. Give people some credit in that most people of the world do not want to exploit other people. Give people some credit that a system can be put in place that circumvents that from happening, and when it does let prosecution and civil suits ensue. Simple fact of the matter the more we assimilate and educate the less that will happen.
Do you always operate on the assumption of assuming the worst of people instead of the best?
Pink Slip is stuck in the 19th century.
So, PS, you assume that a test administered by government to assess the intellect of a person may not be applied fairly? Really? I thought Government was the only entity that can be trusted?
You can’t have it both ways on this one. You either believe that minorities can’t read as well or that government sucks at doing stuff. Which one do you want to pick? I’ve got my pen ready to write this down.
Anyone want to take bets on whether we don’t get an answer?
“My God people…is it slightly possible that others may have differing opinions without being horrible or uneducated? Such invective…”
I would like to point out Pink Slip that you were the one that brought up Rachel Maddow’s credentials.
Laurel is exactly right. How can an individual become fully informed on issues so as to make an intelligent, informed decision before going into the booth to vote if he or she cannot research the issues? Are they to rely on others to tell them the facts? How absurd is that? With the media only telling us what they want us to hear, television being the illiterate citizens’ main source of information, the outcome is obvious, which is why liberals are happy to keep voters ignorant and relying on others. This is America and everyone has the right to an education here. This has been the case for quite some time now so the voters today need to have decided to take the time to become educated. This ensures that they are able to vote in an informed manner. Literacy tests can only be abused if certain citizens are not allowed an education, so, Pink Slip, your argument fails today. This entire thing screams of socialist tactics. Give ‘em a fish, they eat for a day, but teach them to fish… you know the rest. I certainly don’t want the government taking care of me and any intelligent human being doesn’t either, so why not educate everyone and stop those power hungry liberals right in their tracks!
MD: Well said! Pink Slip also wants it both ways as far as education goes as well.
“Do you always operate on the assumption of assuming the worst of people instead of the best?”
When it comes to controlling the vote—-YES! Anyone who doesn’t is naive.
“Give people some credit that a system can be put in place that circumvents that from happening”
I’ll remember your cheery faith in mankind in November when we’re looking at voting irregularities.
Like ACORN right?
Wow, so YOU are the sole arbiter of what government can do well and what it can’t do well. Good to know.
Note, still not an answer.
Pink Slip: Have you written Eric holder yet to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation?
Answer MD!
Actually I think you just did, and that makes you a hypocrite.
Oh and take note that most voter irregularities stem from ACORN, which is on YOUR side of the aisle.
MD, I think that government sucks at doing stuff depending on who is in charge.
LeANN, you are off base. The argument isn’t whether people SHOULD be educated and well-informed on the issues. I agree that they should be. And it isn’t about education. It’s about controlling the vote. Again—literacy tests have been abused in the past. This is an undeniable fact. What makes you think it wouldn’t happen again?
OK, so how do we make sure the right people are in charge? Ask you?
So, because abuse is possible you feel there should be no test whatsoever. Well, the problem with that is that you are trying to keep people in the dark so as to have control over their votes. ACORN is current proof of that… no not from many years ago, but from last year!
Look at what is happening NOW. Abuse can and should be avoided and ACORN is who is currently abusing.
Pink Slip: What makes you think it would? Good luck proving a negative. It isn’t about controlling the vote either…it is about educating voters. So far the only thing you are positing is that chaos is best.
You are right that it has happened in the past, but you are wrong in that you fail to see that it was addressed and corrected. What makes you think it cannot be addressed and corrected again?
And Oh, by the way, I think a literacy test is repugnant. Sadly, though, it might make the political system much better. Too many idiots vote.
I’d love to be the guy who decides who gets to vote, but I wouldn’t want a system that gave anyone or any entity that power. If you’re a citizen, you get to vote.
“so how do we make sure the right people are in charge? Ask you?”
Well no, I’m not suggesting that. But why on earth would we want to give government more power to control who votes and who doesn’t? What if some minorities in a Democratic-controlled town started forcing others to take literacy tests and decided who passes and who didn’t? Would this give the voters confidence in our democracy? Would it add or subtract needed transparency in the system?
MD, I wouldn’t want that either since more laws mean bigger government, but it burns me that people are abusing the ignorant. At the very least there should be required photo ID so as to prevent voting multiple times, thank you ACORN.
As for deciding who passes, scan-trons are machines and have no opinions.
Laurel—“You are right that it has happened in the past, but you are wrong in that you fail to see that it was addressed and corrected.”
Yes, it was corrected by a law saying that we couldn’t do it.
MD, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you just said in that last comment
It seems we all agree on a few things, too many idiots, no to big government, no easy answers. Good debate. Later.
A simple non partisan basic literacy test is possible folks, and actually it ends and begins with the citizenship test as well. One need not be tested on the issues, and don’t confuse it with a literacy test.
However, I don’t think a literacy test would do anything to sway people from voting based upon celebrity worship. That is human nature…unfortunately.
Pink Slip: Laws out date all of the time!
While I agree that there SHOULD be some type of test in order for people allowed to vote, it’s unrealistic – Democrats like to keep their constituents ignorant and uniformed. That is how they win elections.
Many states don’t even require a valid I.D. in order to vote. I’d like to see THAT first!!!!!
And let’s face it, since the White House took over the census – would any of you (other than maybe the liberals) really want THIS administration being responsbile for any type of literacy test or voting rule changes???
Oh and Rachel Maddow is living proof that you can go to some of the best Universities and earn the highest degrees but still have absolutely ZERO common sense.
why are you people wasting your time? PS is just another leftbot, he will NEVER admittdefeat, not even when he has been PROVEN wrong time after time after time.
it is right of Alinsky’s book.
the truth doesnt matter
reality doesnt matter
facts dont matter
Alinsky said it, the end justifies ANY means.
me, i would go the starship trooper route, you want to vote? you have to serve in the military first.
I feel you should be able to read in order to vote. Race has nothing to do with it. Why would you try to vote for someone you know nothing about except for what you hear on the news? Why do people who are “educated” always throw the race card or blame bush? People like me, who believe this administration is inept and breaks their own rules are considered racist, astroturf, etc. I get highly offended at the likes of Maddow, Olberman and the rest that have nothing better to do than to pick people apart who don’t believe everything the Obamessiah, Pukoski, and the rest are trying to spew. thankfully, i can turn the channel when I see her or the rest come on. I gave Maddow and the rest the benefit of the doubt and watched their shows, but I can no longer stomach them.
Here’s a thought… since our country is based on the constitution, why not just use the constitution test that is currently administered at any community college? That would be getting back to what our founding fathers intended for this country. No need to set up special testing centers since they already are in place in a well controlled environment, and the results are scored by a computer. It’s already pass or fail anyway. No need to change a thing. Pass and you get your voter ID card in the mail which along with a state issued photo ID allows you to vote. Who would dare argue this is unconstitutional?
A literacy test to become a citizen is one issue, that has merit, a literacy test for a confirmed US citizen to vote has already been proven unconstitutional. You can’t tax a citizen and then play games with their right to vote-it is a fundamental violation of taxation with out representation and one man (person) one vote, your ability to read or right or the level of your IQ should have no bearing on that INALIENABLE right at all. That’s why those poll test were struck down in the south, and done so by a conservative Supreme Court. This is a regressive issue for the Tea Party movement to get behind, Tancredo is demagoging the issue at the risk of dividing Americans along racial lines.
And MD it wasn’t race that made African Americans and (Poor Whites) incapable of passing the poll test in the south, it was an inferior educational and social system that obscured those stats you referred to….listen you can get all high and mighty about this issue if you want, but most people including right here on this blog have no idea what congressional district they are living in, or who their local Alderperson, City Councilperson is let alone who their State Senator/Assembly person or US Senator is for that matter. Voter participation in this country, especially in primaries-the most important part of the electoral process as it decides who your final candidates will be is Abysmal-beyond Abysmal!. Anyone who has the gumption to get off their butt and make it to their local polling place to pull a lever to participate in a process that Americans are dying for everyday to protect gets my thumbs up dam whether they can read or not. It’s the idiots who don’t vote and what’s the litmus test to weed them out?
About Rachel Maddow’s degree being a “proof” of her superiority: there was a Dr. Schweitzer, and then there was a Dr. Mengele. Having a “Dr.” before one’s name is no guarantee of goodness or wisdom. Heaven knows, Dr. Maddow is not making her alma mater proud (or maybe she is…)
As to who should be allowed to vote: I am completely in favor of literacy test. Liberals should be in favor of it, too, because – if their view of conservatives as illiterate bumpkins is correct – we, the conservatives, would not pass the test, thus giving the liberals an undisputed control of Government.
To abandon a law because it may have been abused is like saying that we should have no doctors because some doctors have abused their privileges. Laws being broken has no bearing on their usefulness.
I completely agree with Laurel on all points.
Just because something is illegal, doesn’t mean it should be. There are rules in society that we once needed, but are no longer necessary. A good example, although not a law prohibiting anything, would be unions. I just can’t imagine the objection to requiring people have a certain level of education to vote. Although, instituting an education requirement would mean that schools have to stop lowering the standards to pass. So…that circles back around to the argument in favor of government doing everything inefficiently.
Again, I do not understand the objection to testing when the test would require a difinitive answer, not a theorectical one that a bureaucrat “scores”.
“About Rachel Maddow’s degree being a “proof” of her superiority: there was a Dr. Schweitzer, and then there was a Dr. Mengele. Having a “Dr.” before one’s name is no guarantee of goodness or wisdom”
That’s correct. But then, I never claimed such a thing. That would be like suggesting that being all scientists have “goodness or wisdom”. But no one would say that about Nazi geneticists (for example).
“I am completely in favor of literacy test. Liberals should be in favor of it, too, because – if their view of conservatives as illiterate bumpkins is correct – we, the conservatives, would not pass the test, thus giving the liberals an undisputed control of Government.”
On the contrary–most of the conservative I hang with are quite smart, and I admire them greatly. There are a lot of conservative country hicks who wouldn’t stand a chance of passing a literacy test. But they still have the right to vote, and I wouldn’t change that.
Who is this Rachel dude and how does he still have a show?
I love how the party of Robert Byrd and slavery has the gall to call others racist.
JDN: In a country that provides free education to all there is no excuse for illiteracy, and therefore it would not be taxation without representation. Those who already vote could be grandfathered in and new young people preparing to vote would need to put in a little effort. Taxpayer dollars pay for their education today. If people choose to remain illiterate in this day and age then perhaps they are forfeiting their right to vote. Literacy tests were found unconstitutional at a time when people of color were not allowed an education, but that is no longer the case. By requiring a certain minimum level of responsibility you are encouraging those people to better themselves at a time in history when too many are relying on government handouts. I doubt our founding fathers ever imagined anyone turning away a free education and then whining taxation without representation. And who would be feeding them their lines? None other than those promising them a good life for their vote. “Let us take care of you. We’ll take from those filthy rich ba$!@rds who have plenty and give to your welfare programs.” Nope, I can’t see those hard working men who fought so hard for this country giving in to this pathetic socialist mentality. Our taxation policies would make them shudder! Something more needs to be required for voting… starting with photo IDs. The bottom line is this: Rachel Maddow’s racist accusations are in fact racist on her part. She is the one assuming that blacks are illiterate and I find that extremely offensive and racist. She also accused anyone who disagrees with her of being part of the KKK. That’s pretty extreme!
Anyone interested in blacks’ rights and the truth about our highly respected Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the KKK should go to NationalBlackRepublicans.com. In the index on the left in blue go down to NBRA Newsletters. Then choose the NBRA Civil Rights Newletter. It is an amazing newsletter written by MLK’s niece. In it she clarifies why King and his father were republicans and how he fought the democrats. Maddow brought the KKK into this so why not get the truth about one of America’s most beloved black Americans and the KKK. It’s black history month!
Whelan
February 7, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Who is this Rachel dude and how does he still have a show?
WINNER!!
Thank you majordawg, sir!
Literacy tests were used on Irish immigrants. Was that racist? Literacy tests were required of newly arrived Italians. Was that racist? Polish? Russian? Latvian? Lithuanian? How far do we take this? The first slave owner in the North American colonies was a black African. His first slave was another black African. Was that racist? Can we all agree that mankind has advanced even just a wee bit in the last couple of centuries? Is it not possible the miracle that was wrought at the Constitutional Convention might be credited with mankind’s advancement. Slavery was universal back then, so a compromise was necessary to take the first step. It has been an evolutionary process and it continues to unfold. Or at least it would continue to develop if certain elements would quit trying to label evey breath everyone takes is racist. If Maddow would shut her piehole, the rest of us could get on with building a decent society, but the Maddows of the world would be put out of business if civility were to reign.
Finally, there is one demographic that has obtained permenant exemption from literacy testing and yet it exhibits a bias that consistently votes 100% Democrat, which ought to obtain some degree of investigative analysis, but never does. Maybe that prepossessive warp is one of the reasons it will never be harassed or investigated. It is a very large geo-political entity with millions of adherrents and it always votes at the cemetery prcinct. That would make them models for Rachel Maddow’s peer group.
As models for the Rachel Maddow counter testing
….Funny, when the Federalist Papers were published in New York in 1787, because most of the colonies were illiterate, no one thought these complex essays would have any effect in helping to ratify, as they were intended, this new constitution across the states/territories, because they thought the average colonist wouldn’t be able read them or understand them. And yet early Americans got the point anyway despite their illiteracy, and the Federalist Papers remain today our most eloquent expression of Jay, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson’s ideas of what our government would soon become…leAnn not all free education is the same in this country, in fact a great deal of it is quite poor and there are sometimes legitimate excuses for why people can’t read or write as they should, hence the unconstitutionality of Poll tests in the south. Even so, literacy, while an important asset, is by no means the ultimate measure of a person’s worth to the people that love them, the communities they live in and the broader societies they serve, not unlike what our founding fathers discovered about their uneducated constituents. likewise, there are quite a few educated people I know who I would not trust to walk my Akita around the block let alone run any part of my country. But none of this is the point.
It’s really a simple concept; if you take a portion of my income to distribute into public accommodations: garbage pick up, fixing pot holes, maintaining public schools, libraries, beaches, parks, providing for security and safety; police, fire dept, federal army etc…then our founding fathers have ensured us that we have an INALIENABLE RIGHT- a right that is apriori-we are born with it, like the right to breath air-to decide as a US citizen who our representatives should be.
Blacks were once considered 3/5Th’s of a man because once you considered them 5/5Th’s then their citizenry and full rights to fully participate in our representative democracy would be imminent. The south fought hard against the abolishment of this as we all know and poll taxes, and literacy tests are the dark and tawdry residue of this legacy. Don’t fool yourself we need to move forward in this country not backwards, and with reason, not emotion.
JDN, I just wanted to thank you for saying all that you have. It was honest, well written, and just damn true!! I’ll just say that I truly agree with everything that you say, and additionally I find it odd that people who want to take government out would like to instill tests to decide WHO can vote. Thats really inviting the government in if you ask me. LeeAnn, I have to comment on you saying there is no excuse for illiteracy. I internshipped at a school in a struggling neighborhood, and constantly saw kids being shuffled through into higher grades, despite not being able to read. They weren’t given the resources necessary to teach these children, and since they couldn’t teach them adequately, they don’t get the funds that could help them. Its a painful catch 22 that is all too common, and it is just unrealistic to say that no one should be illiterate.
Also, what about people with special needs? What about people that easily function in society but are unable to read, maybe they have an IQ of a child, yet they hold down a job? Can they vote, because technically they can’t read, so they shouldn’t, right? The bottom line is…thank GOD this will never happen, no matter how many arguments you want to come up with on why you think it would be a good idea. It would impede on the rights of Americans no matter what your political affiliation. A person can have deep moral reasons for voting for a president, yet be considered “illiterate.” And I must echo JDN in saying thank the people that get off their ass and care enough to vote, because we all know that the majority of people don’t. And now you want to thin that out even more? Ridiculous, and luckily unrealistic.
The one thing I’d like JDN to expand on is the whole taxation without representation thing. So, what about all the people who don’t pay taxes, and simply rely on the government to take care of their every need? A portion of their income isn’t being taken, so how do they fit into your equation?
And re: special needs folks. I can’t imagine why it’s at all appropriate for my severely mentally retarded son, when he turns 18, to vote. But if you guys are cool with me taking him to the polls and pulling a lever on his behalf, I’ll be happy to do it.
I mentioned specifically people that are disabled, but still able to work, or are physically/mentally able. There are people that would be considered illiterate, have the mentality of the child, but may still be able to have real reasons as to who they would like to vote for.
Wow! I knew when I saw 67 comments that I had to get in on this! I am pretty conservative, but I do not agree with a literacy test. I know older people that had to drop out of school VERY early in order to go to work and help provide for their families. These are extremely intelligent people that may not be able to read, but they know what their beliefs and positions are. And as for researching the issues, or people getting all of their info from TV, you can still get incorrect information from other sources and thus still be misinformed yet still literate. Idiots or not, voting is a RIGHT, and there is nothing that says you should have to prove anything either way in order to exercise that right. You do not have to be smart, literate, a certain color, rich, employed, etc. to be a citizen of the US, why should you have to be to vote?
Although, I do not think that this subject was brought up to be racist. I think the intentions were good and motives pure.
Whew boy! A lot of people here are using stereotype as fact. What is the literacy rate in this country? Why is everyone substituting literacy for IQ? Why is Sarah, in true liberal fashion, making victims out of everyone?
AS To this comment…”It’s really a simple concept; if you take a portion of my income to distribute into public accommodations: garbage pick up, fixing pot holes, maintaining public schools, libraries, beaches, parks, providing for security and safety; police, fire dept, federal army etc…then our founding fathers have ensured us that we have an INALIENABLE RIGHT- a right that is apriori-we are born with it, like the right to breath air-to decide as a US citizen who our representatives should be.”
The FF would be appalled that these services aren’t privatized for starters. The FF would also be appalled at the level of taxation and government interference of these services. Last but not least, most of this country doesn’t pay taxes! They get what is known as the ‘earned income tax credit’ to boot.
We print ballots in over 500 languages as well as braille. Making sure someone can read those ballots is not unreasonable. While this does not fix all exploitation, it does certainly keep it at a minimum.
I will also state for the record that I find it absolutely appalling that people who don’t own property, people who are on welfare with their tax payer funded satellite dish hanging off the deck, get to vote on the level of my property taxes.
Sarah: Those little victims is those schools of which you speak are not victims at all, except maybe of bad parenting. We have free will in this country and if someone truly does want to learn then they can. Perhaps you should start a letter writing campaign for those that did want to learn and remove themselves from that situation. Obama jerked their funding…thanks to the unions. You can also slap the ACLU for tying the hands of discipline in the schools. Then go on and thank the Dept. of Education for not properly distributing tax dollars and creating the existence of the schools in the first place.
Thanks for the nice words Sarah. Its how I really feel
Laurel WHAAT? “The FF would be appalled that these services aren’t privatized for starters. The FF would also be appalled at the level of taxation and government interference of these services. Last but not least, most of this country doesn’t pay taxes! They get what is known as the ‘earned income tax credit’ to boot.”
Laurel your’e great you really are, but I have know idea what you are ranting about here, “most people in this country don’t pay taxes? Well can you tell me which country you are living in so I can move there in a hurry! Because my tax hit is a competitive salary in most parts of this country. And being that I do not have kids yet, I get very little credits other than what I can deduct as business expenses. Like Mock I just did my taxes, and I am still sick over them… And I am not following you on the privatization piece. How does any of this equate to the legitimacy of a literacy test to vote? You are kind of all over the place. If in fact we are being over taxed then there is a greater imperative for the private citizen to be even more involved in what goes on over their lives with government, not less.
JDN: No I’m not all over the place, you are trying to change the subject and deny what you posted.
As to who pays taxes, income taxes that is, perhaps you should look at the government charts. I never said YOU didn’t pay taxes! I said a majority of the citizenry doesn’t pay taxes, and they don’t.
As to the FF, and as it relates…you listed the services your taxes pays for, which also depends on the state btw. For example my taxes don’t pay for garbage pick up. What I am telling you is what you know about the FF isn’t so. Do I need to copy what you wrote?
Once again you are confusing literacy tests with IQ tests, and jumping to conclusions replete with assumptions. I think it is a duty to vote, but I also think we should make sure those elections are honest as much as possible. Mock gave you a great example…think about it!
Oh yeah Mock everybody pays taxes, even people on welfare. Income Tax is only one kind of tax, when you buy clothes, pay rent, go to restaurants, movies ect. you pay taxes. The only way you don’t pay tax is if you live in a hut, built by yourself, feed yourself and you still recieve welfare… somewhere in woods lol.
I think to obtain a voter registration card, one should have to prove one of the following
1 Current or prior service to their country
2 Basic knowledge of constitution and government
3 Be a legal taxpaying citizen. (via income tax ) Temporary unemployment excluded.
4 Certificate for special circumstances (disabilities) where proof has been provided of their full understanding of the voting system and what is at stake.
JDN, by the way people living on welfare may be paying taxes when they buy things, but they are paying them with other peoples money, all the while voting to put people in office that will give them more of that money. That’s why I think if you are not paying in to the tax base you should not have influence where the money goes.
These examples, taken from the uber-liberal Baltimore Sun, ought to suffice for Constitutional literacy, ergo, what one should know before they are allowed to vote:
* The basic difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. One establishes a government, the other doesn’t. One rests on man-made law, the other on natural law; one posits only conferred rights, the other posits inalienable rights.
* The age and basic anatomy of the Constitution. When was it ratified? (1788.) How many articles are there? (Seven.) How many Amendments? (27.) What, in general, is each about?
* Certain significant details from the articles and the amendments, such as the basic requirements for being elected to, appointed to, or removed from federal office.
* Most details of each article and amendment and the history surrounding its creation and ratification, including the history of democracy and republicanism.
* The more important arguments for the various elements of the Constitution, such as those found in the Federalist Papers.
* The more famous court cases and their implications for public policy, such as Marbury v. Madison (1803), Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973).
* Key disagreements about the nature of law, rights and justice, and which theories about each are reflected in the Constitution as opposed to the Declaration or other important American documents — such as Marbury v. Madison, which has led some to conclude that judges make law.
* The history of and theories about constitutional interpretation. At this level, disagreement may be due to philosophical or political differences, rather than constitutional illiteracy. Thus, it is fair to call both Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer constitutional scholars, yet they frequently disagree on the meaning of key constitutional passages or of their application to a specific court case.
Among other things these requirements encourage us to know the difference between democracy and republicanism. More importantly, why the Founders were so fearful of the cancer known as democracy that they defined a republican form of government. Republicanism does not set well with either national party, so that concept has been allowed to wither in favor of the more maleable democracy that avails infinite opportunities for corruption.
Papa Kilo: Our representatives in government can’t pass that test.
Papa Kilo, your last paragraph reminded me of this famous quote.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”
Buckeye Bob:
I would add to this that it is the proliferation of individual “rights” that easily leads to decreased liberty. When there are an overabundance of rights, it is inevitable that the rights of one will impose on he rights of another. It is worrisome that the notion of “rights” displaces and/or eliminates the concept of responsibility.
I am reminded of the old story of a pollster asking a prospective voter: “What’s worse in America today, ignorance or apathy?” The voter responds: “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”
I know I’m kind of late to the party here, but…
“then our founding fathers have ensured us that we have an INALIENABLE RIGHT- a right that is apriori-we are born with it, like the right to breath air-to decide as a US citizen who our representatives should be. ”
I just would like to point out to JDN that the right to vote is NOT considered an Inalienable Right. Inalienable rights are defined as the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Also, if the right to vote was considered Inalienable, then we couldn’t take that right away from our citizens, as we clearly do. If you are convicted of a felony you lose your right to vote at least while you are in prison and on parole, and still permanently in the states of KY and VA. It’s really not like breathing at all.
Basic to the concept of Inalienable Rights is the notion that government is OF the people, and can be only be changed BY the people. I take voting as fundamental to this process. It is true that certain states will “suspend” the voting rights of violent felons, particularly during times of their incarceration. They can however get these rights back and this issue has led to constitutional debate as well in those states. Personally I have no problem with a violent felon being barred from the voting process.
Anyway, you have your interpretation I have mine.
Interpretation can only be applied to law, not rights and that is why The Constitution is secondary to the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution can be amended. The Declaration cannot be. The rights ennumerated in The Declaration of Independence are few and purposely so, as alluded to by Jenny. The “rights” conferred by The Constitution can be deleted via the amendment process, but the Declaration gives eternal protection to the few rights it delineates and that is why Thomas Jefferson allowed for the ultimate recourse for citizens confronted with a non-representative government: fertilizing the Liberty Tree.
Actually, JDN, I think that Government of any kind has nothing to do with the concept of Inalienable Rights. Inalienable Rights, as defined in the Declaration of Independence are rights give to us by the “Creator” and or derived from “Natural Law” which means that they are not dependant on any Government. We are born with these rights no matter where or who we are in the world. If I was born in the UK and was 5th in line for the throne I would have these rights. Likewise, if I were born in the Congo and lived in a hut on the river and had nothing to my name, these right would still be mine. In either case, I wouldn’t have the right to Vote in the United States.
Papa Kilo- Exactly!
“All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Can the ballot really be seperated from natrual law as defined by our own constittion? I don’t think Susan B Anthony, or Martin Luther King Jr would agree with this nor the SCOTUS that voted against the unconstituional disenfranchisement of these factions.
However Papa and Jenny you are correct that it is not a right guaranteed in the constitution. Alright I am done with this lol.