• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

Which party is any ignorant bigot more likely to vote for? I suppose that depends on where his bigotry has taken him.

I think you would have a difficult time showing that people who lack the abilities I just listed would be more likely to vote for a Democrat than those who don't. Other than an extreme example or two, do you have some evidence that your supposition is correct?

I believe that during the past four years it would be easier to provide extreme examples from the Democrats than it would from the Republicans. The obvious differences between the demeanor of Tea Party and the OWS movement would tend to support that point of view.
 
I believe that during the past four years it would be easier to provide extreme examples from the Democrats than it would from the Republicans. The obvious differences between the demeanor of Tea Party and the OWS movement would tend to support that point of view.

There are some examples in the OWS movement, to be sure. On the other hand there are some interesting examples in the elected officials of both parties. On the one hand, there's Maxine Walters. On the other hand, there's Rick Perry.

Then there are the pundits who cheerlead from the sidelines: Limbaugh, and Savage on the one side; Rhodes on the other side.

No, I think both parties have some examples of shall we say, lack of rational thought?
 
There are some examples in the OWS movement, to be sure. On the other hand there are some interesting examples in the elected officials of both parties. On the one hand, there's Maxine Walters. On the other hand, there's Rick Perry.

Then there are the pundits who cheerlead from the sidelines: Limbaugh, and Savage on the one side; Rhodes on the other side.

No, I think both parties have some examples of shall we say, lack of rational thought?

All those named have rational thought and have risen to some powerful poisitions with the support of a great many people, iand you may agree or disagree with them.

But when it comes to the masses there is no doubt that the groups which support the left, the democrats, behave in a far more irrational manner and are far more responsible for public mischief than are Republican supporters. I shouldnt need to provide links to that as it is self evident. Surely intelligence, and public responsibility, has to play a part in these differences.
 
... behave in a far more irrational manner and are far more responsible for public mischief ...
I'm sure you thought the same about the people in the 60's participating in the civil rights movement and peace rallies. Thank goodness someone is willing to speak up when they think a crime is being committed. Call it irrational if you want, I call it an American's duty. And, yes, civil disobedience is often part of that.

Be glad it's not Republicans, they'd probably show up with guns instead.
 
All those named have rational thought and have risen to some powerful poisitions with the support of a great many people, iand you may agree or disagree with them.

But when it comes to the masses there is no doubt that the groups which support the left, the democrats, behave in a far more irrational manner and are far more responsible for public mischief than are Republican supporters. I shouldnt need to provide links to that as it is self evident. Surely intelligence, and public responsibility, has to play a part in these differences.

Yes, there's those radical Democrats ranting about how a woman who wants birth control included in her medical insurance plan is a whore and a slut who wants the taxpayers to pay for her sex.

as one example.
 
Yes, there's those radical Democrats ranting about how a woman who wants birth control included in her medical insurance plan is a whore and a slut who wants the taxpayers to pay for her sex.

as one example.

Perhaps, but we weren't speaking of "one example".
 
I'm sure you thought the same about the people in the 60's participating in the civil rights movement and peace rallies. Thank goodness someone is willing to speak up when they think a crime is being committed. Call it irrational if you want, I call it an American's duty. And, yes, civil disobedience is often part of that.

Be glad it's not Republicans, they'd probably show up with guns instead.

My contention is that Republican supporters tend to be more intelligent than those who support the Democrats. Thanks for helping me make my case.
 
My contention is that Republican supporters tend to be more intelligent than those who support the Democrats. Thanks for helping me make my case.

so, you think that those civil rights demonstrators were unintelligent?

Does that mean you think they were wrong?
 
My contention is that Republican supporters tend to be more intelligent than those who support the Democrats. Thanks for helping me make my case.

Another hack in america poops themself.
 
so, you think that those civil rights demonstrators were unintelligent?

Does that mean you think they were wrong?

Personally, I think both sides are a bunch of delusional idiots. The Republican side, in general,have imaginary friends and the Democrat side thinks the world owes them free stuff. I disagree with both sidea, both are irrational.
 
My contention is that Republican supporters tend to be more intelligent than those who support the Democrats. Thanks for helping me make my case.
Your statement tends to show the opposite - assuming you support Republicans.
 
[...] Yes, i believe the States should be running their education system in order that politicians like BHO cannot play these games on a national level. That is giving the Feds too much power.. The Feds have politicized education, as we can see, and that is to no ones benefit. [...]
What games are being played with education on "a national level"?

Bonus question: How have "the feds politicized education"?

And all this applies to the thread topic how?
 
[...] If you can explain how having an ID to vote is regulating an individual please explain how that is being done. [...]
They are doing it how they always do it... by tailoring the requirements so that the demographic that they wish to disenfranchise is the most affected/distracted/inconvenienced by said requirements.
 
so, you think that those civil rights demonstrators were unintelligent?

Does that mean you think they were wrong?

No, I strongly support civil rights and don't believe the demonstrators were wrong at all. In fact these people were having very peaceful protests, quite unlike what happened in Oakland and other places where the OWS took hold.

And you do know that George Wallace was a Democrat, right?
 
My contention is that Republican supporters tend to be more intelligent than those who support the Democrats.

Gee, I wonder why people think you're a partisan hack?....
 
And you do know that George Wallace was a Democrat, right?
When you say things like,

The President (John F. Kennedy) wants us to surrender this state to Martin Luther King and his group of pro-Communists who have instituted these demonstrations.

you kind of broadcast your real affiliation regardless of what it might be on paper. Wallace had to resort to running as an Independent for President, the Democrats wouldn't let him on their ballot.


Most southern whites felt rejected by the Democrats because the Dems supported civil rights and, Voila!, the pro-Republican South was born!
 
Last edited:
What games are being played with education on "a national level"?

Bonus question: How have "the feds politicized education"?

Ask the kids in DC that were actually starting to get an education, before Obama came to town as President that is....

j-mac
 
[QUOTE said:
MoSurveyor;1060264902]When you say things like,

The President (John F. Kennedy) wants us to surrender this state to Martin Luther King and his group of pro-Communists who have instituted these demonstrations.
you kind of broadcast your real affiliation regardless of what it might be on paper.

But of course I never said that. I never even hinted at it.

Wallace had to resort to running as an Independent for President, the Democrats wouldn't let him on their ballot.

I assume you are not American. Any reasonably well educated American would know that George Wallace ran for President on the Democratic ticket in 1964 and did very well on the states he entered, northern states by the way.
Most southern whites felt rejected by the Democrats because the Dems supported civil rights and, Voila!, the pro-Republican South was born!

That's the claim now, but history contradicts this blithe account of things.
 
Last edited:
But of course I never said that. I never even hinted at it.
All that is an reference to Wallace. I believe that quote was from a speech he made in 1963 when he was Governor of AL. I don't where you got the idea that I thought you said it. Wallace's apparent intent after 1960 was to reject the civil rights movement (or, at least, black's rights in the South) so he could win the Alabama Governor's race. He succeeded in that. He won in 1962 and kept going down that path to keep his white voter base.

I assume you are not American. Any reasonably well educated American would know that George Wallace ran for President on the Democratic ticket in 1964 and did very well on the states he entered, northern states by the way.
You mean he ran in the PRIMARIES to become a candidate for President in 1964. He didn't make it by a long shot.

-Any reasonably educated American would know that Johnson "ran for President on the Democratic ticket in 1964" - and won.
-Any reasonably educated American would know that Wallace ran for President on the Independent ticket in 1968.

So much for who is or isn't a "reasonably well educated American" or, according to you, an American at all.

That's the claim now, but history contradicts this blithe account of things.
There are two funny things about history. One, the winners write the books. Two, the "facts" as some people call them, which are usually just opinions that connect the actual facts, are open to interpretation and everyone believes their version is 'right'.
 
Last edited:
Looks like sanity is rearing its ugly head in a few U.S. jurisdictions. A Wisconsin judge just suspended that state's voter ID law, stating:

[F]orty uncontested affidavits offer a picture of carousel visits to government offices, delay, dysfunctional computer systems, misinformation and significant investment of time to avoid being turned away at the ballot box. This is burdensome, all the more for the elderly and the disabled. . . . Mr. Ricky Tyrone Lewis is 58 years old, a Marine Corps Veteran and a lifelong Milwaukee resident. He was able to offer proof of his honorable discharge but Milwaukee County has been unable to find the record of his birth so he cannot obtain a voter ID card. Ms. Ruthelle Frank, now 84, is a lifelong resident of Brokaw, Wisconsin and a member of her town board since 1996. She has voted in every election over the past 64 years but she does not have a voter ID card. She located her birth certificate but found that her name was misspelled. She was advised to obtain a certified copy of the incorrect birth certificate and try to use that to obtain a voter ID card. . . .

The plaintiffs do not dispute, and the court certainly accepts fully the value of maintaining the accuracy and security of the ballot process. At this point, however, the record is uncontested that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23.


Judge grants temporary injunction barring enforcement of voter ID law in April election
 
All that is an reference to Wallace. I believe that quote was from a speech he made in 1963 when he was Governor of AL. I don't where you got the idea that I thought you said it.

All you need do is look at the post.

You mean he ran in the PRIMARIES to become a candidate for President in 1964. He didn't make it by a long shot.

Yes. He was a Democratic candidate for president and he collected a third of the vote of the Democrats in three northern states. This does not make him a Republican.

-Any reasonably educated American would know that Johnson "ran for President on the Democratic ticket in 1964" - and won.
-Any reasonably educated American would know that Wallace ran for President on the Independent ticket in 1968.

Except that I mentioned Wallace as a Democrat in 1964, not 1968. Read the post again if you're still confused.
There are two funny things about history. One, the winners write the books.

No, anyone can write a book. That's a poorly thought out cliche that never carried any truth or wisdom with it.
Two, the "facts" as some people call them, which are usually just opinions that connect the actual facts, are open to interpretation and everyone believes their version is 'right'.

I've only pointed out the "Fact" of George Wallace running as a Democrat presidential candidate in 1964, not 1968 as you claimed, and gaining a credibile amount of support in the process. Do you dispute this?
 
Yes. He was a Democratic candidate for president and he collected a third of the vote of the Democrats in three northern states. This does not make him a Republican.
(Never said he was a Republican.)

I've only pointed out the "Fact" of George Wallace running as a Democrat presidential candidate in 1964, not 1968 as you claimed, and gaining a credibile amount of support in the process. Do you dispute this?
Let's see 3 of 50 states is 6% and 1/3 of that is about 2%. Yeah - I can see where you would call that "a credibile amount of support". :roll:

Running for the nomination is not that same running for the office. What I said was,
Wallace had to resort to running as an Independent for President, the Democrats wouldn't let him on their ballot.
You haven't disproved this, you've just decided that "running for President" and "running for the nomination for President" is the same thing, when they're not.
 
But of course I never said that. I never even hinted at it. I assume you are not American. Any reasonably well educated American would know that George Wallace ran for President on the Democratic ticket in 1964 and did very well on the states he entered said:
George Wallace campaign for president:

Former Governor of Alabama George Wallace ran in the 1968 United States presidential election as the candidate of the American Independent Party.

Wallace's pro-segregation policies had been rejected by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The impact of the Wallace campaign was substantial, winning the electoral votes of several states in the Deep South. Although Wallace did not expect to win the election, his strategy was to prevent either major party candidate from winning a preliminary majority in the Electoral College, which would then give him bargaining power to determine the winner.
 

Your notes are rather sketchy. Let's fill them out a bit.

George Corley Wallace (August 25, 1919 – September 13, 1998) was an American politician and the 45th governor of Alabama, serving four terms: 1963–1967, 1971–1979 and 1983–1987. After four runs for U. S. president (three as a Democrat and one on the American Independent Party ticket), he earned the title of "the most influential loser" in 20th-century U.S. politics, according to biographers Dan T. Carter[1] and Stephan Lesher.[2]

Building upon his newfound public image following the University of Alabama controversy, Wallace entered the Democratic primaries on the advice of a public relations expert from Wisconsin.[22] Wallace campaigned strongly by expressing his opposition on integration and a tough on crime platform. In Democratic primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and Indiana, he won a third of the vote in each state.[23]

The segregationist Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, ran in a number of northern primaries against Johnson, and did surprisingly well in primaries in Maryland, Indiana, and Wisconsin against favorite son candidates who were stalking horses for Johnson. All favorite-sons, however, won their primaries
 
Your notes are rather sketchy. Let's fill them out a bit.

So what is your point? You do realize that it was primarily the civil rights movement that caused many southern democrats to switch to the Republican Party, right? This is not something I'd be boasting about if I was a (non-racist) Republican.
 
Back
Top Bottom