Desperate for the glory days of the civil rights movement (you know . . . when liberals actually had a cause), the DTH published a heartwarming editorial today blasting the recent House vote which, if approved by the Senate, will require citizens to show a photo ID before voting.
If you have a lot a spare time on your hands and would like to be entertained you can read it here:
http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/
news/2006/09/29/Opinion/Fishier.Than.A.Sushi.Bar-2316398
.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailytarheel.com&MIIHost=media.
collegepublisher.com
The questionable practicality of their argument is a mute point.
However, on the eve of “race relations week” I found myself disgusted by the editorial board’s claim that the legislation will “make voting significantly tougher for target groups. Namely poor people, blacks, Latino, the elderly, victims of natural disasters, and other groups who currently do not have the reason, the transportation, or perhaps the money to purchase a photo ID.” (emphasis added)
You heard it hear first. Apparently, according to the DTH, some races and ethnicities have a natural inclination to not have photo IDs. It must be genetic . . .
While I would “never accuse” the far left of manipulating and demeaning minorities with the invention of such stereotypes in order to get elected, one “does have to wonder” if the Bob Johnsons, Oprah Winfreys, and Alex Rodriguezes of the world would agree that attaining a photo ID is one of the many struggles of their races.
Good job DTH . . . can’t wait for your coverage of next week.
Ironically, racism is really the product of classical liberalism, not traditional conservatism. Christendom more or less recognized that all men are equal before God because all men are created in the image of God. It took the enlightment’s rejection of God and all the “liberalizing” perversions flowing from that rejection to bring about what we now know as racism. Anyway, it would be an interesting topic to write a thesis on.
“Have you watched some white politicians talking to black audiences? It’s bad enough to watch the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do an imitation of Flip Wilson’s Reverend Leroy. But to watch Al Gore and Bill Clinton do it is insulting in the least. They don’t talk to white audiences that way. As a matter of fact Sharpton and Jackson don’t talk to white audiences that way either – talking about going from the outhouse to the White House and from disgrace to amazing grace and other such nonsense. By the way, after addressing the NAACP’s 95th annual convention in Philadelphia, Kerry gave the audience the black power clenched fist salute. I wonder whether his white audiences get the black power salute as well.On July 23rd, President Bush gave a speech to the National Urban League. Unlike so many other white politicians speaking before predominantly black audiences Bush didn’t bother to pander and supplicate. He spoke of educational accountability and school choice and condemned high taxes, increased regulation and predatory lawsuits. He defended the institution of marriage. He didn’t see blacks as victims in need of a paternalistic government to come to our rescue. He saw blacks needing what every American needs – an environment where there’s rule of law, limited government and equality before the law. The most important question President Bush left with the audience was whether blacks should give the Democratic party a monopoly over their vote and take their votes for granted.”Article by Walter Williamshttp://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/conservatives.html
I like this quote too:”It’s always been my contention that the conservative vision shows far greater respect for blacks than the liberal you-can’t-make-it-without-us vision. For decades there have been buy-off-the-black-vote presidential appointments like secretaries of labor, health and human services, education, and housing. But it’s been conservative presidents who have appointed blacks to top positions of responsibility and authority such as Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Republican presidents didn’t make these appointments to buy off the black vote. They chose the best people around who just happened to be black Americans.”
First, I’d question whether race was not taken into account with the appointments of Colin Powell and Condi Rice. I don’t think you can make the claim it wasn’t any more strongly with them than with Democratic black appointments.Second, Ken Blackwell (ironically, a black Republican)’s violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments in Ohio in 2004 would speak to conservatives’ respect for and welcoming attitude toward blacks.Third, and more to the point of the original post, ID is essential, but the DTH is right that no requirement should be made for it being a prerequisite to voting until every single voter can easily, and free of charge, obtain such ID. But since it costs a bit of money to get both a drivers’ license (or state photo ID) and passport, then the government should either eliminate those charges at least for a non-license ID or reimburse voters for them. Otherwise, as the DTH said, it’s the same thing as a poll tax.
No one who does not pay taxes should be permitted to vote. Maybe instead of a driver’s license, we could just have people bring their tax forms. As for your other comments, I disagree with the first and the second has no basis in fact.
Also, to say that requiring a driver’s license is tantamount to a poll tax is absurd and a leap never acknowledged by the Supreme Court.I personally don’t even see a problem with poll taxes as long as they are not used to intentionally discriminate on the basis of race.
No one who does not pay taxes should be permitted to vote.That’s ludicrous. That disenfranchises anyone in poverty and any young people who have not yet worked a job that requires them to pay any taxes.Maybe instead of a driver’s license, we could just have people bring their tax forms.That wouldn’t be much more of an ID verification than a bill.As for your other comments, I disagree with the first Why?the second has no basis in factYes, it does. Blackwell deliberately did all he could to suppress the Democratic vote, particularly in black wards.Also, to say that requiring a driver’s license is tantamount to a poll tax is absurdAbsolutely not. If you have to pay a fee in order to vote, it’s a poll tax.I personally don’t even see a problem with poll taxes as long as they are not used to intentionally discriminate on the basis of race.Are you joking?! First, it’s unconstitutional (though that never stopped conservatives before and still doesn’t). Second, there should never be a fee to vote. Voting is a civil right, not something we should filter so only the priveleged can exercise it. A required license/poll tax would be, and it would be hard to say in this day and age that it wouldn’t be intentially discriminatory, putting a greater impediment to poor voters, who are more frequently racial minorities, than to middle class or rich voters, who are more frequently white than minorities.
The founders knew what they were doing in only allowing those people who paid property tax to vote. Especially this day in age when the welfare state has gotten so excessive, it does not make sense that people who are taking money from other people via the redistributive efforts of the government should at the same time be permitted to vote. In effect the masses could continually vote for those people who promise to dole out the government dime, which is essentially the horrid spectacle we see every election season with the likes of a John Kerry or John Edwards.Additionally, poverty and youth are not immutable characteristics. Everyone who is in poverty strives to work their way out of it and everyone that is young grows old. Thus, unlike the issue of race or sex, the “disenfranchisement” argument you proffer is unconvincing. As for the poll tax thing, poll taxes were constitutional for a much longer period of time before becoming unconstitutional. Additionally, the constitutionality of a particular matter does nothing to determine whether it is good/bad policy, or moral/immoral. For instance, it is unconstitutional for a state to put restrictions on a woman’s right to kill her child in the womb, but I still love what South Dakota has done because regardless of its constitutionality it is the just and moral thing to do. As for poll taxes, I was really just trying to bait you. I don’t know whether they are good policy or not, but I do think that the Supreme Court was completely wrong in ruling them unconstitutional where no evidence of “invidious” racial discrimination existed. Also, while voting is a “civil right,” that does not mean legitimate restrictions should not be placed on it to prevent voter fraud and only allowing those people who actually pay something into the system decide who will then run the system and spend the money they put in and allocate the resources. Also, it is important that the electorate is competent to vote, which in a lot of districts in this country is highly questionable.
Also, could you provide some evidentiary support from a credible source as to your seemingly defamatory remarks towards Blackwell?And additionally, I certainly know that Republicans have become as shameless as democrats when it comes to the issue of race. I just think the democrats are still worse and that is what I was disagreeing with, not that Bush doesn’t consider race and “diversity” politics in everything he does.
The founders knew what they were doing in only allowing those people who paid property tax to vote. Especially this day in age when the welfare state has gotten so excessive, it does not make sense that people who are taking money from other people via the redistributive efforts of the government should at the same time be permitted to voteYour ill informed elitism astounds me.In effect the masses could continually vote for those people who promise to dole out the government dimeAnd the rich could continually vote for those who will promise them the largest tax cuts. I think the rich got more out of voting for Reagan and Bush than the poor have ever gotten from a Democratic president, at least since the 60s.Additionally, poverty and youth are not immutable characteristics. Everyone who is in poverty strives to work their way out of it and everyone that is young grows old. Thus, unlike the issue of race or sex, the “disenfranchisement” argument you proffer is unconvincing.Huh? It’s as simple as this: if a perosn who is eligible to vote in a particular election cannot vote in that particular election because of unconstitutional poll taxes and other restrictions, then they are being disenfranchised. You apparently need to consult a dictionary.As for the poll tax thing, poll taxes were constitutional for a much longer period of time before becoming unconstitutional.To drive a truck through the obvious hole in your argument: so was slavery. Would you argue for the reinstitution of slavery?I don’t know whether they are good policy or not, but I do think that the Supreme Court was completely wrong in ruling them unconstitutional where no evidence of “invidious” racial discrimination existed.It’s not a matter of race or discrimination. It’s the fact that abridging the right to vote is an explicit violation of the 14th amendment.Also, it is important that the electorate is competent to vote, which in a lot of districts in this country is highly questionable.I think a lot of voters are stupid. Take Bush voters, for instance. It would be nice if everyone were well educated, and therefore voted Democrat 99% of the time, but it is a simple fact that poll tests are unconstitutional and it is impossible to determine “competence.”Also, could you provide some evidentiary support from a credible source as to your seemingly defamatory remarks towards Blackwell?Check out all the links to stories at the following:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.htmlhttp://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities
Dustin, you simply are not as learned as you think you are and as a result are not able to even understand what I am talking about. You have no real understanding of constitutional law.
Dustin, if you care to actually think for yourself and not just take everything you have been told or read in a magazine as incontrovertible and/or infallible truth, then see this Supreme Court case:Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).Specifically, read Hugo Black’s dissent in the case to understand some of what I was trying to say. I happen to think Hugo Black was right and the majority were wrong. As for all of your other comments, they were so incredibly stupid I am not even going to waste my time responding. Just do the reading on your own and if you want to continue to be the closed minded left wing democrat party hack that you are, then so be it.
I’ve seen this before with Wampler: when you can’t refute anything I say, just result to angry insults. That really speaks to your intelligence and “learnedness.”