literacy didn't make tancredo any smarter.

The opening night speaker at the Tea Party convention suggested a return to a "literacy test" to protect America from presidents like Obama -- a segregation-era method employed by southern US states to keep blacks from voting

Except the liberal literacy test consisted of one question:

What letter is "D"?

who ever suggested it, lib or con, was wrong.

a segregation-era method employed by southern US states to keep blacks from voting.

If there is an epidemic of blacks being unable to read and your biggest concern is that they may not be able to vote, then that says something about you.

And any test before voting is ridiculous.

Fucking italics.

It is not a "can you read" test. It is a "are you literate in how the country works" test.

Here are sample questions:

"If a person charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted?"

"If a president does not wish to sign a bill, how many days is he allowed in which to return it to Congress for consideration?"

"If the United States wishes to purchase land for an arsenal and have exclusive legislative authority over it, consent is required from [fill in the blank]."

It is not a fairly applied test and the questions asked can be out of the range of what is required, but to think it is a "can you read test" shows comprehension is also lacking.

I would hope that anyone voting for President or Senator would understand the purposes of those jobs, length of term, and who was running.

It was a decent idea ran by hate-filled fools.

LoD, your post #2 is bullshit. Cite one post in any thread in which any liberal ever advocated using literacy tests to deny rednecks from voting. You can't because it never happened. You just made it up (you lied) to defend your rightwing Parties racist beliefs.

"It is not a "can you read" test. It is a "are you literate in how the country works" test."

But if you can't do the first, it kind of makes the second moot, doesn't it?

And, if the voter-to-be fails, do they get to stop paying taxes?

Posted by moder8 at 2010-02-05 03:36 PM | Reply

You funny. I'm sure your just having a senior moment, it'll pass.

I remember it but am pretty sure it was the likes of Axe, Jackass or Corky and not an unbiased moderate such as yourself.

But if you can't do the first, it kind of makes the second moot, doesn't it?

Not at all. Many Hispanics may be illiterate when it comes to reading English, but very literate in how the nation works.

"And, if the voter-to-be fails, do they get to stop paying taxes?"

And if they weren't paying income tax, must they start (and lose all federal entitlements) if they pass?

"Many Hispanics may be illiterate when it comes to reading English, but very literate in how the nation works."

And will the test be in every language, and will there be translators at every precinct?

"And if they weren't paying income tax..."

There are lots of federal taxes other than income tax. And most workers pay more in payroll taxes over their lifetimes than income taxes.

"Not at all. Many Hispanics may be illiterate when it comes to reading English, but very literate in how the nation works."

Damn straight, they can play our entitlement/voter reg/DOT/etc systems like a freakin fiddle!!!!

Sheeple #10, I call bullshit. Cite even one instance of a liberal ever advocating the use of literacy tests to deny rednecks from voting. You can't. You are a liar.

Which is why I specified income taxes....

I mean, since we are talking hypotheticals here...

#16 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-02-05 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Do I looks like your research bitch?

I love how people misunderstand something, get bend out of shape about what they thought it meant, and then demand the word stop being used because it makes them feel "icky."

Literacy test is not a reading test.

Retard does not always mean the mentally retarded.

You complain about illegal immigrants not speaking English, yet most of you show on a daily basis your grasp of it is minimal at best.

No, you just look like a lying bitch.

"Do I looks like your research bitch?"

No, you look like his lying bitch. It's simple: link to proof of your statement, or retract.

"Literacy test is not a reading test."

True, but if you're going to have a pre-req for voting, you're saying that right supersedes the right to vote.

There is no "right to vote." There is the privilege to vote, but no right. Each state is free to choose how the delegates to the Electoral College are selected and the states have chosen voting, but there is no such thing as a "right to vote."

There is no "right to vote." There is the privilege to vote, but no right. Each state is free to choose how the delegates to the Electoral College are selected and the states have chosen voting, but there is no such thing as a "right to vote."

So if the government said that only landowners could vote, you would feel they are completely in the right and that the only way to change that would be to elect people who would change it back so that everyone could vote, but you rent, so that'll never happen.

Thats a scary way to look at things.

Andy,
It is the proper way to look at it. Show me where there is a "right to vote."

Commencing after the Civil War, a series of constitutional amendments were adopted that addressed the right to vote. The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibited states from denying the right to vote on account of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The Seventeenth Amendment (1913) permitted the direct election of U.S. senators. The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) enfranchised women (see Gender). The Twenty‐fourth (1964) banned poll taxes. The Twenty‐sixth (1971) directed states to allow qualified citizens who were age eighteen or older to vote. Finally, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) came to be read as preventing states from enacting suffrage laws that conflict with fundamental principles of fairness, liberty, and self‐government. Yet none of these amendments affirmatively granted the right to vote.

This was confirmed in 2000.

Yet in Bush v. Gore (2000), the Supreme Court stated that there was no constitutional right to vote in presidential elections because the Constitution, in creating the Electoral College, left it up to the states regarding how electors would be chosen.

Kanrei - very informative, but any attempt to restrict people from voting is both political suicide and generally not cool.

After reading your links I was wrong about the right to vote, but I'm operating on this: There are plenty of laws and amendments that say if some can vote, then all must be able to

Kanrei - very informative, but any attempt to restrict people from voting is both political suicide and generally not cool.

I agree, but a right is something that cannot be taken away. We must use that word correctly or else it loses all value.

Posted by andyuhenet at 2010-02-05 04:17 PM | Reply

Except felons??

To my bitches: I'm still looking.... dammit!

The Supreme Court initially upheld literacy tests and poll taxes as constitutionally permissible means by which to maintain a responsible and informed electorate, but in the 1920s Democratic party primaries in which participation was restricted to whites began to crumble under judicial attack in cases such as Smith v. Allwright (1944).

Here is a little more about the "literacy tests" and their legal position and purpose.

Having been exposed as a LIAR, Sheepleshepard flees the thread. LOL

To my bitches: I'm still looking.... dammit!

;P

We still fall victim to the tyranny of the majority and they actually are stronger now. They don't understand what words mean, but insist upon their uses being changed. Pathetic. We are just dumbing ourselves down annually.

I wouldn't mind a battery of tests before one can vote. Civics, literacy and IQ. I believe only liberals would be elected.

I support blank pages for voting that the voter must fill out with the names of all candidates running and who they vote for. IF they don't know all the options, then they have not placed enough thought into it IMHO.

I just find it funny that people all the sudden become concerned with the process when their guy doesn't win. Obama being a shitty president is a big problem but Bush being an even shittier president for eight years was OK to the same jerk.

We don't need literacy tests. We need people to realize that blind loyalty to people who do nothing but fuck you is stupid..

that blind loyalty to people who do nothing but fuck you is stupid..

Isn't that called "marriage?"

literacy test for reichwing = have you read the roman comic book.

I wouldn't mind a battery of tests before one can vote. Civics, literacy and IQ. I believe only liberals would be elected.

#34 | Posted by jackass at 2010-02-05 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag

Uh oh Moderate, I just had to wait for Jack to show up... I'll grant you he didn't say "redneck"

Tancredo is a traitor to the Conservatives.

We have to put up with him as, I'm sure, you Libs have your undesirables... Michael Moore, Al Gore, Al Franken, Pelosi, Reid, to name a few.

You may share some level of idiology, but you'd rather they shut up from time to time.

Me? Tancredo harps too much on the border and too many Mexicans in Colorado. I'm just sayin, where are they?

#37 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-02-05 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag

FF

Sheeplesheperd, I'll assume you are searching in good faith. I beieve you will find that you are simply mistaken. (I shouldn't have gotten all indignant and called you a liar. It just gets frustrating having misinformation presented as truth.)

Sheeple: In all fairness, if all libs are responsible for the assertions of Jackass, does that mean all cons are responsible for the assertions of Tadowe or Goodlittlenazi?

#34...I would certainly agree with you there, but some rethug lawyer would no doubt argue that the questions were skewed by liberal professors. Let's face it, there ain't no educated republican professors since William F. Buckley, JR went to hell, and even he was unable to foresee the shit storm Reagan ushered in and the two Bushes then ran the ball for a wrong way touchdown.

is it not my right to vote regardless of how i arrive at my decision? are voting booths not private --so you can't see me and my dice or crystal or crucifix?

i may know plenty, i may be a Constitutional expert and STILL choose the voice i hear only when in the voting booth or the telepathic communication from my dog outside.

if the American market place of ideas cannot convince me otherwise, i am guaranteed to vote how and for whom i choose.

(as i understand the story: a canary shatting on a newspaper chose better stock picks than experts.)

fucking fascist pig Tanfucko et al. WTF is WRONG with these people! are they innocent by ignorance? NO. was Hitler?

LoD, your post #2 is bullshit. Cite one post in any thread in which any liberal ever advocated using literacy tests to deny rednecks from voting. You can't because it never happened. You just made it up (you lied) to defend your rightwing Parties racist beliefs.

#8 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-02-05 03:36 PM

.........I've often thought that there should be educational, or I.Q., test thresh-holds for both voters and candidates for elected office.........
Posted by skizziks at 2008-05-07 09:23 AM

......under our current system, an UNINFORMED vote counts for the same as an INFORMED vote......
......but should they be really equal ??......
Posted by skizziks at 2008-05-07 09:45 AM

I'll admit I shouldn't have used the word, "bunch," in my original post.

I remember my cousin, a die hard Republican, griping during the Regan years about why we needed to bother with Nicaragua, since they were all they way in Asia. I though then, and still do, that there should be some way to screen who gets to vote.

"the Constitution, in creating the Electoral College, left it up to the states regarding how electors would be chosen."

Unless, of course, the SC doesn't like the outcome, and then it can dictate to the states.

Cite one post in any thread in which any liberal ever advocated using literacy tests to deny rednecks from voting. You can't because it never happened.

Whether it did or not, the liberals here certainly have shown a history of not giving a shit about suffrage.

The clowns that put the drunken, verbally-crippled bankruptcy machine in the White House should have their voting privileges stripped.
#88 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2010-02-04 12:17 AM

for those who voted for this guy and have since switched teams and are ranting against him, a huge f.y.. you're way too slow on the figuring-out aspect of things and your voting rights should be repealed.
Posted by sense at 2008-02-20 05:22 PM

You assholes shouldn't be allowed to vote or reproduce. Mandatory abortion for pregnant conservative women.
Posted by igmoramus at 2008-05-07 12:26 AM

Maybe evangelicals shouldn't be allowed to vote, as it seems their concern is with another country.
Posted by BobOtto at 2008-06-14 09:59 AM

I can't believe you morons elected this morn for another term. Are you really happy with yourselves? You owe the country an apology, and should have your voting rights revoked for being so stupid.
Posted by WTF at 2007-11-13 05:35 PM

Everyone that voted for W twice should be denied the right to vote for anything, including dogcatcher, for the next 6 elections cycles, rubbed in dog shit and be swatted with a rolled up newspaper.
Posted by Reagan58 at 2007-10-26 12:30 PM

And, if the voter-to-be fails, do they get to stop paying taxes?

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-05 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Most likely if they fail the test they are not paying taxes already. The question should be, if the voter-to-be fails, do they get to stop receiving welfare?

A civics test prior to the election? Why would anyone be against it? An informed voter is a smart voter. Because the demoncrats know that if their voters actually knew they were being kept down by the demoncrat party, they would stop voting demoncrat.

The hell with the test - if you don't own property you should not get to vote.

So you're right, Moder8. Lefties don't want to impose reading tests. They want to take away voting rights entirely. Kudos to you for leading us to that distinction.

You have to take a test to drive a car, why not take a test to vote? I'm all for it. It's a sad day in America when the idiots run the asylum. Think Leno talking to those stupid Obama voters that can't even name the three branches of the government.

Hey Joe, the allegation was that libs "advocated using literacy tests to deny rednecks from voting". That never happened. Or is that too complex for you to grasp?

#43 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-02-05 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag

Hell no! I also didn't fire the original volley on that one, LoD did... Granted he dug up posts from Skizzy, but one apple don't necessarily spoil the whole bushel.

PS..

"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.

Jefferson feared the ignoramii too...

Still there would be NO test that would satisfy all parties and therefore there will be NO test, nor should there be.

I wouldn't mind a battery of tests before one can vote. Civics, literacy and IQ. I believe only liberals would be elected.

#34 | Posted by jackass

I would add to that entitlements from any government. If you didn't pay taxes and got welfare, you are not allowed to vote. That would level the playing field even more.

At last night's Tea Party convention Ray Stevens was the other riveting entertainer (besides Tancredo). He did a few aptly chosen, extremely well received numbers for them including "Too Drunk to Fish" and "Family Funeral Fight". but, it was "Mississippi Squirrel Revival" that brought them to their feet:

"The day the squirrel went buzzerk in the
First Self-Righteous Church in that sleepy little
town of Pascagoula. It was a fight for survival
that broke out in revival. They were jumpin' pews
and shoutin' "Hallelujah"."

The enormous crowd of 600 knew every word. By the time the encore, "Sittin' Up With The Dead" was performed, the crowd were ready for their nightcap of tea and moose antler biscuits. "Best $550 I ever spent", said Buddy Earl Faquatall of Moonbeam, Arkansas. "Well, besides the Korean bride Preacher Moon married me to.", he added. We asked his wife for her thoughts. Pausing for what seemed like several confused minutes, she finally nodded and said "Noomba One!"

Or is that too complex for you to grasp?

#54 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-02-05 04:53 PM | Reply

Clearly his #52 was too complicated for you, dumbfuck.

See also #48.

but you look exactly like the bitch at the bar who likes sucking cock.

#56 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2010-02-05 04:55 PM | Reply

Did that "bitch" drive a conversion van and tell grandiose stories with added details that always expose the story as a lie? Did she try to give you a ride home?
Did that same bitch use the "AllAmerican" handle and pretend to be a Colonel?

#56 | Posted by mentalwhOre at 2010-02-05 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag: FF

You're right, Moder8. Lefties don't want to impose reading tests. They want to take away voting rights entirely. Kudos to you for leading us to that distinction.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-05 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or Acorn.

"You have to take a test to drive a car, why not take a test to vote? I'm all for it"

what???

driving is a privelage.

voting is a right.

voting is a right.

#65 | Posted by klifferd at 2010-02-05 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Only for US citizens over the age of 18. So you have the "privelage" of driving prior to voting. Why do you think that is?

You bear a slight resemblance to my research bitch, but you look exactly like the bitch at the bar who likes sucking cock.

#56 | Posted by mOntecOre

So does Madelaine Albright.

The opening night speaker at the Tea Party convention suggested a return to a "literacy test" to protect America from presidents like Obama -- a segregation-era method employed by southern US states to keep blacks from voting

Can you back that up with any posts - I'll even accept quotes from others in reply. Please, think about this scenario - the Teabaggers repeatedly shouted down town hall meetings in order to foment a violent response - which they never received.

If you can recall the 2000 Florida Presidential election - millions of Black Americans votes were ostracized through an illegal selection process - a privatized third-party registration de-selection. Your Republican representatives "selected" which votes came from where, and AMAZINGLY they were all removed from predominantly Black Democrat districts. Doesn't that spark any outrage?

From wiki:

During the Reconstruction period of 18651877 federal law provided civil rights protection in the South for "freedmen" the African Americans who had formerly been slaves. In the 1870s, white Democrats gradually returned to power in southern states, sometimes as a result of elections in which paramilitary groups intimidated opponents, attacking blacks or preventing them from voting. Gubernatorial elections were close and disputed in Louisiana for years, with extreme violence unleashed during the campaign. In 1877 a national compromise to gain southern support in the presidential election resulted in the last of the federal troops being withdrawn from the South. White Democrats had taken back power in every Southern state.[4] The white, Democratic Party Redeemer government that followed the troop withdrawal legislated Jim Crow laws segregating black people from the state's white population.

So as you can see, it was a democratic initiative.

#68 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-02-05 05:25 PM

The quotes in question were in response to an article about an obviously uneducated rwinger who thought Obama was sworn in on the Koran or some shit, if you care to look up the thread.

Redlightrobot: don't you find it odd that despite all the hot air from the losing side, none of that was ever documented or brought to trial? Probably because it was pure bullshit from the start?

They (the democrats) had trial lawyers all over the polling stations in Florida after the elections begging anyone to come forward with a legitimate case of voter tampering. Not one ever turned into a real case.

"Most likely if they fail the test they are not paying taxes already."

*Sigh*

Another moron who doesn't realize everyone pays taxes, and most workers pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.

would add to that entitlements from any government. If you didn't pay taxes and got welfare, you are not allowed to vote. That would level the playing field even more.

#57 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-05 04:56 PM | Reply

It would disenfranchise a whole lot of farmers if that happened but oh well.

Only for US citizens over the age of 18. So you have the "privelage" of driving prior to voting. Why do you think that is?

#66 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

The stupid is strong in this one.

We have the right to bear arms. Do we let a 3 year old carry a gun? Why do you think that is?

Driving is a privilege that is granted once it is earned. You take the test show and you can drive safely and understand the law. If you don't pass the test you cannot drive (legally).

Voting is a right that is turned over to you freely when you are old enough (as determined by law) to be old enough to understand that right. There is no requirement that you actually understand it or use it wisely just that you be given enough time to have done so. The voting law should be lower. If you are old enough to work and pay taxes then you should be a able to vote too.

If they would bother to vote I think they would vote smarter than most adults.

Elcid obviously studies at the Chairborne School of Crock.

If they would bother to vote I think they would vote smarter than most adults.

#74 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-02-05 05:45 PM

"If you didn't pay taxes and got welfare, you are not allowed to vote."

Well, there goes a lot of corporations.

"#68 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-02-05 05:25 PM"

I already posted quotes here: #46 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-02-05 04:43 PM
The quotes in question were in response to an article about an obviously uneducated rwinger who thought Obama was sworn in on the Koran or some shit, if you care to look up the thread.
#70 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-02-05 05:36 PM

Thanks, sorry I missed that, and the gist of your post. I'm always stressed when I see people who claim that President Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen. It's mind-blowing, but self-delusion is the easiest and first tactic to inventing blind partisanship.

Redlightrobot: don't you find it odd that despite all the hot air from the losing side, none of that was ever documented or brought to trial? Probably because it was pure bullshit from the start?
They (the democrats) had trial lawyers all over the polling stations in Florida after the elections begging anyone to come forward with a legitimate case of voter tampering. Not one ever turned into a real case.
#71 | Posted by boojiboy at 2010-02-05 05:38 PM

It's entirely and historically predictable, imo. The Democrats are supposed to ignore it. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claims that Americans should "get over it". Dick Cheney parrots that sentiment. Those are their roles in this unified executivist governance - power at all costs.

The war was planned over a year earlier for an Iraq invasion to control their oil, then invade all neighboring nations. "Spreading democracy". And that's just what has happened.

The British have always vied for control over the Middle Easts resource distribution via Suez Canal, Egypt, Sudan, etc. The day that BP was nationalized in Iraq in 1953 we have been warring them every which way, and currently using America as it's overly-willing profiteer partner.

The theft wasn't bullshit at all - and what Kerry was claiming about BushCo investing in China and privatizing our national resources is absolutely happened. The "flip-floppers" are bullshit - it's one thing to invite political discourse for truthful debate, it's quite another to willingly sound-bite a nation into poverty.

The Black American vote has always been the bane of Republicans. It's predictable to a fault.

There is also the small matter of the company hired to do this racial re-tabulation..

#61 | Posted by 101Chairborne

This bitch is an obsessed broken record. If GOATMAN thought my car looks like a conversion van, I'll donate $10,000 to Rev. Douchebag TV preacher to heal Chairborne's legs. Maybe the good Rev. can cure his worn out comedy act too. Cancer jokes about people's family members? Whatta guy!

Chairborne's obsessed with calling half the posters here 'liar' when they share innocuous true anecdotes, but gets called out by Prolix in a heartbeat:

"101 Got into it with me one day about navy gun fire and shore bombardments. He tried to tell me he was a gun fire spotter and was in charge of my fire mission and that He only requested White Phosphorous (Willey Pete) which is illegal under Geneva. I knew he was full of BS...."

Posted by Prolix247 at 2010-01-31 11:07 PM

Why it would be necessary to read to be able to vote escapes me.

Are blind people going to be denied the vote because they can't read? How stupid is that.

Tancredo - a Jim Crow Teabagger.

hmmm... I LIKE the sound of that!

Yet every day in the Senate, the Democrats put forward Robert KKK Byrd. Nothing tops that.

Byrd, who renounced the KKK and Jim Crow laws decades ago.

Right on, AU. Mossbacks who have nothing better than Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond generally have nothing better, and thus bask in their intellectual bankruptcy. herm

600 Tea Party conventioneers? What a MASSIVE outpouring of support!

"White Democrats had taken back power in every Southern state.[4] The white, Democratic Party Redeemer government that followed the troop withdrawal legislated Jim Crow laws segregating black people from the state's white population."
#69 | Posted by boojiboy

Ain't truth a bitch sometimes:

HERM

GOP leaders are extremely embarrassed by a recent poll of GOP voters:

Research 2000/DKOS poll samples:

-QUESTION: Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

All 23 (Y) 58 (NO) 19 (Not Sure)

-QUESTION: Should sex education be taught in the public schools?

All 42 (Y) 51 (N) 7 (NS)

-QUESTION: Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

All 31 (Y) 56 (N) 13 (NS)

but. if your teenager gets pregnant:

-QUESTION: Do you consider abortion to be murder?

All 76 (Y) 8 (N) 16 (NS)

buuuuuuuuuuuuut, pro-life only to a point:

-QUESTION: Do you support the death penalty?

All 91 (Y) 4 (N) 5 (NS)

-QUESTION: Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

All 39 (Y) 32 (N) 29 (NS)
(overwhelming support for Bush and his countless lies though)

-QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

All 36 (Y) 42 (N) 22 (NS)

"So does Madelaine Albright.
#67 | Posted by wisgod"

Especially her wattle.

GOP leaders are extremely embarrassed by a recent poll of GOP voters:

#85 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

I missed the part where GOP or the leaders are embarrassed.

Your just too eat up with your own political correctness that you think that anyone but a screwed up Liberal with moron compass would actually be embarrassed!

Especially since you changed the posting and added your own comments that show your politics!

Your political correctness McCarthyism is getting YOUR OWN fucked up leaders in trouble lately.

Judge NOT! Lest ye be judged.

*with moron compass

LOL!!!

with no moral compass

Especially since you changed the posting and added your own comments that show your politics!

My comments were mine. That should be obvious to you. I even wrote 'samples:', so of course it wasn't the complete poll.

I read the other day GOP leadership is embarrassed by it. The numbers don't lie. Too many GOPers are bat shit crazy. They have good reason to worry at 1st and D SE, D.C.

That should be obvious to you. I even wrote 'samples:', so of course it wasn't the complete poll.

#89 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Yes it was obvious after I went to the original article :)

But it should have been obvious to you that it shows you politics.

That doesn't make you embarrassed?

I read the other day GOP leadership is embarrassed by it. The numbers don't lie. Too many GOPers are bat shit crazy. They have good reason to worry at 1st and D SE, D.C.

#89 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

What? Define bat shit crazy?

Let me pull some of these.

-QUESTION: Do you consider abortion to be murder?

All 76 (Y) 8 (N) 16 (NS)

You don't? That's a little past embarrassment.

-QUESTION: Should sex education be taught in the public schools?

All 42 (Y) 51 (N) 7 (NS)

Looks like half of them are too embarrassed to talk to their kids about sex and half are not.

Me? I talk to my kids about it. They are not guessing when the moment arrives to choose to have sex or not to have sex. And if they choose, then they know what they're getting into.

You see? Conservatives are not too confused as Liberals are about this.

-QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

All 36 (Y) 42 (N) 22 (NS)

Hey! All Barry needs to do is show more documents.

He brought it up just yesterday. Why?

-QUESTION: Do you support the death penalty?

All 91 (Y) 4 (N) 5 (NS)

Actually, I am one of the 4 on this one.

-QUESTION: Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

All 23 (Y) 58 (NO) 19 (Not Sure)

This one should embarrass the Libs! The fact that 23 selected to say yes, says to me that 23 think that they want to rely on themselves instead of the Feds. It's a self-reliance thing. You wouldn't understand.

Pick one AU, let's talk about it.

oh! and define bat shit crazy.

OK, EDDIE, his citizenship. Obama passed a rigorous 'top secret' clearance before he was allowed to serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, for starters. Secondly, he was elected President, a position ONLY natural born U.S. citizens are allowed to occupy (putting aside McCain's Panama birth).

-QUESTION: Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

All 23 (Y) 58 (NO) 19 (Not Sure)

This one should embarrass the Libs! The fact that 23 selected to say yes, says to me that 23 think that they want to rely on themselves instead of the Feds. It's a self-reliance thing. You wouldn't understand.

#91 | Posted by Eddie

No. It means they're bat shit crazy secessionists, like the Palins. They don't want to be Americans. Un-American by any definition of the word.

But it should have been obvious to you that it shows you politics.

That doesn't make you embarrassed?

#90 | Posted by Eddie

The poll was done by a reputable polling firm. Paid for by DKOS. Their methodology is at the bottom of the poll.

"The assembly of Tea Baggers kicked off with a surprising omission in their Patriopathic' zeal to commence the festivities. They neglected to praise the Lord with an opening prayer. They also decided to forego the Pledge of Allegiance. In one fell swoop they dissed both God and country. And that's not all. There were no American flags flying in the convention hall.

For those wondering, the convention web site says there are still tickets available for Sarah Palin's speech tomorrow night. The Queen Tea Bagger was not able to sell out the hall. If anyone thinks that 600 Baggers is an impressive showing, please note that two weeks from now the National Wild Turkey Federation is gathering at the same venue. They are expecting 40,000 attendees."

"It's a self-reliance thing. You wouldn't understand.

#91 | Posted by Eddie"

No, it is a need to feel special thing and you, Eddie, wouldn't understand even as you do it.
Right wing narcicism is rampant, these assholes love to think of themselves as some sort of heroic rebels when, in reality, they are a bunch of low IQ sheeple repeating the talking points they have been taught through tedious repition.

The mud starts to fly. Libs are going to label conservatives everything they can. Desperation at it's worst

At least we're factual and not still purporting the President isn't a citizen and a zillion other ridiculous wishful untruths.

#99 - yes, it's certainly bad enough that he's not even qualified to run a shoe shine, much less a country of this magnitude.

#100 | Posted by nanc at 2010-02-06 12:33 AM |

It figures that nanc would figure out a way to work shine into her post.

#100 | POSTED BY NANC

Nanc, you're only making AU's point for him.

Shoe shine? Really?

#101 - 102 - are y'all being stereotypical? I've only known white shoe shines...like my dad! Rest his soul.

Is this potus** qualified to run anything? Really? He cannot even give his wife a decent smooch!

#103 | POSTED BY NANC

Nice try, but no.
MY shoe shine reference had nothing to do with race. Don't know if yours did or not.

But you were responding to AU's post about "ridiculous wishful untruths", and gave us precise that.

And then did it again with the smooch comment.

So, again, you're only making AU's point for him.

It's like he's disgusted with her...good grief.

We can't all be married to Nancies..... :(

A bunch of you liberals on this blog have suggested this numerous times to keep red necks from voting Bush or Republican. Nice selective outrage.

#2 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-02-05 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Link Please!

Also, if what you claim did happen, I don't think anyone here was a lawmaker in Congress. Slight difference...but hey, don't let that stand in your way.

"If anyone thinks that 600 Baggers is an impressive showing, please note that two weeks from now the National Wild Turkey Federation is gathering at the same venue. They are expecting 40,000 attendees."

#96 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

How much does it cost to register for the National Wild Turkey Federation convention?

I heard on NPR that the registration fee for the Teabaggers was a whopping 540 dollars.

If you gave a mandatory literacy and civics teat to every American prior to an election you could prolly count the ballots of a national election by hand in under a hour.

/Yes, snap.

Be Well.

teat = test.

/Good thing this wasn't a spelling test.

Be Well.

I'd rather have a teat than a test anyway

I heard on NPR that the registration fee for the Teabaggers was a whopping 540 dollars.

Nothing like a 'for-profit' convention for a 'grass roots movement', huh?

I'd suck at either, SPUD.

Spud: teat = test

I'd suck at either, SPUD.

~Ooh-Rah.

Lawls! ^_^

Damn, man, you are just shameless, aren't you?

FF.

Be Well.

Link Please!
#106 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-02-06 05:32 AM | Flag: Obviously didn't read the thread; could've easily just scrolled down and found quotes I provided; not very bright

Also, if what you claim did happen, I don't think anyone here was a lawmaker in Congress. Slight difference...but hey, don't let that stand in your way.
#106 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-02-06 05:32 AM | Flag: Obviously has reading comprehension problem since I clearly stated "on this blog" and not in Congress; not very bright

Conventional minds are always wrong about pivot moments in a nation's history. Obama promised change. The past year has let it slip from his hand. The carnage heaped upon manufacturing is taking innovation with it. The two are intimately linked. The real trends,denied by Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, Summers..... are destroying our economy. First people must recognize this problem which elites spin as "Freedom" with ever increasing intensity.

The economy of influence that grips Washington has destroyed Congress's independence.

Without doubt, we need to push the Fair Elections Now Act. But we also need to begin the process to change the Constitution to assure that reform can survive the Roberts Court. That constitutional change should focus on the core underlying problem: institutional independence.

No amendment would come from this Congress, of course. But the framers left open a path to amendment that doesn't require the approval of Congress--a convention, which must be convened if two-thirds of the states apply for it.

Interestingly (politically) those applications need not agree on the purpose of the convention. Some might see the overturning of Citizens United. Others might want a balanced budget amendment. The only requirement is that two-thirds apply, and then begins the drama of an unscripted national convention to debate questions of fundamental law.

As Obama once said: "If we're not willing to take up that fight, then real change--change that will make a lasting difference in the lives of ordinary Americans--will keep getting blocked by the defenders of the status quo".

"Defenders of the status quo"--now including the souls that hijacked the movement Obama helped inspire.

Excerpted from Lawrence Lessing @ The Nation

GO TO THE NATION AND SIGNUP FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONVENTION. BYPASS OUR CORRUPT GOVERNMENT.

"If you didn't pay taxes and got welfare, you are not allowed to vote."

Well, there goes a lot of corporations.

Big loss for them, as corporations have been voting in droves.

corporations have been voting in droves.

No need to vote when you own politicians on both sides of the aisles.

Voting becomes practically* meaningless then.

/*Both parties are bad but not equally so.

Be Well.

"GO TO THE NATION AND SIGNUP FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONVENTION. BYPASS OUR CORRUPT GOVERNMENT."

Just did and I will get EVERYONE I KNOW to do the same.

"I'd rather have a teat than a test anyway
#109 | Posted by goatman"

Why would you want three?

Chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry

"GO TO THE NATION AND SIGNUP FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONVENTION. BYPASS OUR CORRUPT GOVERNMENT."

Just did and I will get EVERYONE I KNOW to do the same.

#117 | Posted by danni

No thank you! That will open a HUGE can of worms you don't want to deal with.

This idea was being pushed by the teabagger types a few years back. Once the convention opens ANY issues can be considered. It would not be limited to campaign reform.

All the righties that want the constitution to ban abortion - yep that will be their chance.

A convention like this would get out of hand and out of control very quickly. As bad as the current system is I don't want to go to worse - I want to go towards better.

how about a $1 = 1 vote... bring your tax return...

If you flip burgers and get a 4K refund from the gov't... you get the min 1 vote.

If I paid 23K in taxes, I would get 1 vote for being a citizen and 23,000 votes for my personal contribution to the gov't.

It would be a 'skin in the game' kinda thing. The same basic reason the original vote was limited to land owners.

Chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry

#119 | Posted by goatman at 2010-02-06 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Neapolitan