A revolution with a modern day twist

That's how you play it, taking a test is a way of oppression. I didn't say "'literacy' test" I said a Constitutional test. It would not be a pass fail test dumbass. It’s a sickening thought when a recent poll was conducted, 26 % of those polled did not know who America declared freedom from in 1776. Those people should never be allowed to vote.

As for taxes you pay them so why do you worry about that part?
Who wants to read something ironic? This sandbag wants to test voter's knowledge of American history and call it a "Constitutional Test"!

All American citizens have the right to vote and that's how it must be. Voter repression resulting in the ideological culling of what you perceive as ineligible voters is anti-American.

So, again I ask: what is it exactly you love about America?
[/QUOTE]

An ounce of Constitutional knowledge is worth more then a pound of obama BS. Do you feel threaten that democrats might just lose a lot of voters who might just have to study the Constitution? I never said they had to pass any test or did you over look that part?
 
That's how you play it, taking a test is a way of oppression. I didn't say "'literacy' test" I said a Constitutional test. It would not be a pass fail test dumbass. It’s a sickening thought when a recent poll was conducted, 26 % of those polled did not know who America declared freedom from in 1776. Those people should never be allowed to vote.

As for taxes you pay them so why do you worry about that part?
Who wants to read something ironic? This sandbag wants to test voter's knowledge of American history and call it a "Constitutional Test"!

All American citizens have the right to vote and that's how it must be. Voter repression resulting in the ideological culling of what you perceive as ineligible voters is anti-American.

So, again I ask: what is it exactly you love about America?

An ounce of Constitutional knowledge is worth more then a pound of obama BS. Do you feel threaten that democrats might just lose a lot of voters who might just have to study the Constitution? I never said they had to pass any test or did you over look that part?
[/QUOTE]No. I feel threatened that testing a voter's eligibility based on ideology, constitutional history, literacy or any other criteria other than citizenship is counter to the American way.

And yet you say you love America! Why?

Seems you want all Americans who don't think (that's an overstatement) as you do to no longer be eligible to vote. That's scary! That's tyrannical thinking. That's a real shame.
 
how would you define people who thought only landed white men should vote?

Before I answer could you clearify what you mean by landed white men?

These people are living in the past. And when it came down to giving blacks the right to vote? It was the Democrats that balked. They have been living the guilt trip ever since.
Do you understand the difference between political ideology and party affiliation?

Because I don't think you do based on this bon mot.

Are you a Republican before you are a Conservative, or is it the other way around?

You see. I'm a Liberal before I'm a Democrat. The Strom Thurmond/Lester Maddox wing of the Democrat party was not Liberal. The Theodore Roosevelt wing of the Republican party was not Conservative.

Rethink your history before you use it to defend your points.
 
Before I answer could you clearify what you mean by landed white men?

These people are living in the past. And when it came down to giving blacks the right to vote? It was the Democrats that balked. They have been living the guilt trip ever since.
Do you understand the difference between political ideology and party affiliation?

Because I don't think you do based on this bon mot.

Are you a Republican before you are a Conservative, or is it the other way around?

You see. I'm a Liberal before I'm a Democrat. The Strom Thurmond/Lester Maddox wing of the Democrat party was not Liberal. The Theodore Roosevelt wing of the Republican party was not Conservative.

Rethink your history before you use it to defend your points.

No... I'll leave the history revisionist crap to you.
 
[SNIP]

"

"Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.

How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.

Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.

Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.

Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.

Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.
What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables."

[/Snip]

SOURCE

Every bit of this is searchable, and on record. You have some work to do.
 
Who wants to read something ironic? This sandbag wants to test voter's knowledge of American history and call it a "Constitutional Test"!

All American citizens have the right to vote and that's how it must be. Voter repression resulting in the ideological culling of what you perceive as ineligible voters is anti-American.

So, again I ask: what is it exactly you love about America?

An ounce of Constitutional knowledge is worth more then a pound of obama BS. Do you feel threaten that democrats might just lose a lot of voters who might just have to study the Constitution? I never said they had to pass any test or did you over look that part?
No. I feel threatened that testing a voter's eligibility based on ideology, constitutional history, literacy or any other criteria other than citizenship is counter to the American way.

And yet you say you love America! Why?

Seems you want all Americans who don't think (that's an overstatement) as you do to no longer be eligible to vote. That's scary! That's tyrannical thinking. That's a real shame.[/QUOTE]

You fear with knoweldge that the democrats would lose any eloection they tried to run in.. That's why you keep over looking the fact that I said it wasn't a pass fail test. No I don't want anyone to think as I do. I just want them to have a little common sense when it comes to the Constitution and with common sense comes knowledge and a fairwell to liberals, progressives, socialist Democrats and RINO'S
 
That's how you play it, taking a test is a way of oppression. I didn't say "'literacy' test" I said a Constitutional test. It would not be a pass fail test dumbass. It’s a sickening thought when a recent poll was conducted, 26 % of those polled did not know who America declared freedom from in 1776. Those people should never be allowed to vote.

As for taxes you pay them so why do you worry about that part?
Who wants to read something ironic? This sandbag wants to test voter's knowledge of American history and call it a "Constitutional Test"!

All American citizens have the right to vote and that's how it must be. Voter repression resulting in the ideological culling of what you perceive as ineligible voters is anti-American.

So, again I ask: what is it exactly you love about America?

An ounce of Constitutional knowledge is worth more then a pound of obama BS. Do you feel threaten that democrats might just lose a lot of voters who might just have to study the Constitution? I never said they had to pass any test or did you over look that part?

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

..
Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

..
Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

..
 
[SNIP]

"

"Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.

How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.

Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.

Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.

Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.

Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.
What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables."

[/Snip]

SOURCE

Every bit of this is searchable, and on record. You have some work to do.

Common sense and logic is wasted on blind liberal eyes.
 
Again, it's time to throughly understand the difference between party affiliation and political ideology. Cutting and pasting some source which ignores this vital fact demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, that you have failed to make this simple, yet critical link in making a solid, well founded point.

If you persist in ignoring this and calling this important distinction 'revisionist history', the intelligent and responsible posters on this board will find you and your arguments tedious and childish.
 
Again, it's time to throughly understand the difference between party affiliation and political ideology. Cutting and pasting some source which ignores this vital fact demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, that you have failed to make this simple, yet critical link in making a solid, well founded point.

If you persist in ignoring this and calling this important distinction 'revisionist history', the intelligent and responsible posters on this board will find you and your arguments tedious and childish.

Translation: "Shit! I lost the argument...and all I have now is rhetoric..."

That about sum it up sport? :lol:
 
Again, it's time to throughly understand the difference between party affiliation and political ideology. Cutting and pasting some source which ignores this vital fact demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, that you have failed to make this simple, yet critical link in making a solid, well founded point.

If you persist in ignoring this and calling this important distinction 'revisionist history', the intelligent and responsible posters on this board will find you and your arguments tedious and childish.

Translation: "Shit! I lost the argument...and all I have now is rhetoric..."

That about sum it up sport? :lol:
As I said, tedious and childish.

And you never will understand it and yet try in vain to convince people otherwise.

If you understood 'rhetoric', you might prove to be someone worthy of debate. As it stands, you are a pontificator without merit.
 
Again, it's time to throughly understand the difference between party affiliation and political ideology. Cutting and pasting some source which ignores this vital fact demonstrates, in no uncertain terms, that you have failed to make this simple, yet critical link in making a solid, well founded point.

If you persist in ignoring this and calling this important distinction 'revisionist history', the intelligent and responsible posters on this board will find you and your arguments tedious and childish.

Translation: "Shit! I lost the argument...and all I have now is rhetoric..."

That about sum it up sport? :lol:
As I said, tedious and childish.

And you never will understand it and yet try in vain to convince people otherwise.

If you understood 'rhetoric', you might prove to be someone worthy of debate. As it stands, you are a pontificator without merit.

In other words you cannot refute the post. /Conversation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top