Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17257
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Scooter »

Here's a great idea to encourage young people to become more politically engaged - put up as many roadblocks as possible to dissuade them from voting:
WASHINGTON — The problem with “foolish” young voters, says a New Hampshire Republican, is that “they don’t have life experience and they just vote their feelings.”

“Voting as a liberal — that’s what kids do,” House Speaker William O’Brien said at a recent Tea Party event in recorded remarks that have caused a sensation this week in the United States.

Those vexing young voters are apparently behind efforts by the Republican-controlled New Hampshire legislature to pass two bills.

One would allow students to cast ballots in their college towns only if they live there permanently, or if their parents do, requiring all other young voters to vote where they came from, even if it’s across the continent.

The rationale seemed to have been provided recently by another New Hampshire Republican, Gregory Sorg, who said taxpaying citizens in college towns are seeing their votes “diluted or entirely cancelled by those of a huge, largely monolithic demographic group ... composed of people with a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce.”

Another New Hampshire bill would end same-day voter registration in New Hampshire. O’Brien says that practise leads to hordes of students descending upon polling stations on voting day, creating the potential for voter fraud.

The story went viral earlier this week when it appeared on the front page of the Washington Post.

Republicans in New Hampshire, which shares a tiny portion of its northern border with Quebec, have since been accused of attempting to quash democracy in order to stack the voter deck in their favour.

In response, Republicans are crying foul. The intent of two proposed voting reform bills, they say, is simply to crack down on voter fraud, not to disenfranchise young Democrats.

Changing the law “is not an idea targeting any political party or ideology,” O’Brien said in statement to the Post earlier this week.

Same-day registration “coupled with a lax definition of residency creates an environment in which people may be claiming residency in multiple locations.”

There’s just one problem with that explanation, says one expert on election law.

Numerous studies have shown that the type of voter fraud that New Hampshire Republicans are supposedly targeting is all but non-existent in the United States. In what’s considered the most comprehensive study into the issue, Barnard College political scientist Lorraine Minnite concluded last year that extensive, intentional voter fraud is a myth.

And yet New Hampshire isn’t alone in its efforts to ostensibly crack down on voter fraud in a nation still haunted by the infamous 2000 presidential election, when George W. Bush narrowly beat Al Gore amid voter irregularities in Florida.

Each American state determines how to run its elections, and other Republican-controlled state legislatures are considering measures similar to New Hampshire’s, all ostensibly aimed at cracking down on voter fraud.

Thirty-two states are preparing to introduce laws that would require voters to present not just photo identification, but in some cases proof of citizenship, when they show up to vote on Election Day. Proof of citizenship means either a passport, birth certificate or naturalization documents.

In Wisconsin, a Republican-backed bill would ban voters from using school-issued student cards as identification. Drivers’ licences and passports would be accepted, but opponents point out that many students don’t have either piece of identification.

Voter ID requirements are one of many tactics used to disenfranchise voters,” Heather Smith of Rock The Vote, a group that encourages young Americans to cast ballots, said in a statement on the Wisconsin initiatives.

“Our country’s voter registration system is unfair, antiquated and ill-equipped to serve the next generation of Americans, and efforts to turn back the clock even further are an affront to all citizens.”

Other critics maintain that the tougher stateside requirements target not just youth, but African-Americans, another group that also overwhelmingly votes Democrat. Many African-Americans don’t have passports or drivers’ licences and can’t afford to get them.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently upheld a state law requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls.

But in Arizona, a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote was struck down late last year by a federal appeals court because it conflicted with the U.S. National Voter Registration Act.

That act was passed in 1993 to streamline voter registration procedures across the country. It enables voters to register when they apply for a driver’s licence or social services, and allowed mail-in registration.

There’s no question America’s voting system isn’t perfect, Levitt says.

But going after young voters — “adults who we trust to do an awful lot, including fighting in the military” — makes next to no sense. Young adults have a right to vote where they live, and if they try to commit electoral fraud, they’ll most certainly be caught under existing laws, he added.

“If anyone attempts to vote in multiple locations, it’s easy to prosecute,” he said.

“You’ve always got a paper trail, you’ve got two different poll books with the same signature and same name
, and the penalties under federal law are a potential 10-year prison sentence and a $10,000 US dollar fine. That would seem like a pretty good deterrent.”
So let's see if I've got all the Republican talking points on this one:

College students are too stupid to vote (but uneducated, toothless hicks who probably fuck their sisters are not).

College students don't have the right to elect the public officials representing the area where they will actually be living for at least the next four years, but anyone except a college student who has lived in the area just as long or even shorter has every right to vote there.

People who don't drive or cannot afford a trip outside the country do not deserve to vote.

If they claim it's all about preventing fraud, even if they can't substantiate it, it justifies attempting to disenfranchise anyone likely to vote Democrat.

Does that sum it up?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by dgs49 »

Republican talking points on this issue:

(1) People should not be able to vote where they don't live and have no vested interest. College students are transients; they don't actually live in the college town, they own no property there, and they pay no local taxes. They have no interests other than freedom to party and drink. The risk of both fraud and promiscuous voting (electing a dog as mayor) is both troubling and real.

(2) College students can file absentee ballots and vote where they actually live, should they choose to do so. In recent years, new laws have made absentee voting so simple that even a college student could do it.

Nobody is in any danger of being "disenfranchised" by these measures, and the local Dems are the only ones offended because they know that most college students, being clueless about life (it is almost mandatory), are almost guaranteed to vote Democrat.

And the idea that college students "live" in the college towns for four years is also bullshit. They go home on breaks and in the summer. Home. Get it?

quaddriver
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 4:40 am
Location: Wherever the man sends me
Contact:

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by quaddriver »

Well aside from the partisan hysteria...

In this country almost every, if not every, state has allowed students to maintain home state residency regardless of where they goto school if they a) are established in the home state and maintain at least 6 credits/semester or b) are not financially emancipated and use the parents data on their FASFA.

It is no different that allowing serving military to maintain a home state for ID and tax purposes regardless of deployment or duration.

so that portion of the complaint is pure bunk.

next comes the voting requirements, when I was a student, i voted in exactly 1 election where I needed an absentee ballot for my home district, until I became emancipated. I would assume other states are exactly similar, except NH, so that part of the complaint becomes dismissed. NH apparently has issues.

Does any one reading this, who lives in america NOT have to present identification to cast a ballot? I find positive answers hard to believe.

(follow up: does any one reading this, who does not live in america, who has in their host country 'voting' get to vote sans any ID?) My guess is no.

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6722
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Long Run »

For what it is worth, the U.S. Census has changed this over time, and in the most recent census had college students list their college address as their place of residence. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1525/census ... count-them This would be the basis for allocating federal funds and federal congressional districts.

However, in my experience college students have had the flexibility to register to vote either at their "home" or at their college residence. From a policy standpoint, there is a good case to made that temporary residents, such as students (or people who are temporarily working away from home or on a long visit to a certain place), should not vote on local issues for the reasons described in the article and post. It makes more sense for them to vote where their actual home is. On the other hand, students do live and some work where they go to school, so they do have some interest in the outcome of local elections. As long as they only get to vote in one place, either way seems good to me.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17257
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Scooter »

dgs49 wrote:(1) People should not be able to vote where they don't live
Where one eats and sleeps and works and spends money is where one lives. What other defintion should apply?
and have no vested interest
Says who? College students have no interest in the wellbeing of the communities in which they have chosen to spend, at least, the first four years of their adult lives, and perhaps into the future, if they find full-time employment there?
College students are transients
Making a substantial financial investment to commit to living in a community for at least four years makes someone a transient?
they don't actually live in the college town
According to Dave's dictionary, eating, sleeping, working, and spending money isn't "living"
they own no property there
Neither does anyone else who rents their home. Should we disenfranchise all renters as well?
and they pay no local taxes
If they pay rent and they buy food and clothing and supplies then they are paying local taxes.
They have no interests other than freedom to party and drink
If that were really true, then they would have no interest in voting, so this wouldn't be an issue.
The risk of both fraud and promiscuous voting (electing a dog as mayor) is both troubling and real.
Already addressed and debunked.
College students can file absentee ballots and vote where they actually live, should they choose to do so.
Why should they be required to do so, if they meet the same residence requirements applicable to any other voter?
Nobody is in any danger of being "disenfranchised" by these measures
Of course not. Requiring someone to shell out a hundred bucks for a passport is no impediment to voting.

There's a reason why poll taxes were eliminated, and they shouldn't be able to be reintroduced by stealth through ridiculously restrictive ID requirements.
And the idea that college students "live" in the college towns for four years is also bullshit. They go home on breaks and in the summer. Home. Get it?
[/quote]I have always visited my parents on holidays and during vacations as well. Does that mean that where I live the majority of the time is not my "home"?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by dgs49 »

As I have noted before, Scoots, you are an idiot.

It is possible for someone to change their legal residence when they go away to school. This involves a number of tangible actions which might include, changing residency for a driver's license and/or their auto owner's registration, changing addresses with the post office, signing a lease IN ONE'S OWN NAME, buying property, or getting a (real) job. Life being as it is, however, 99% of college students who are living on campus (as contrasted with commuting students) are, despite being legal "adults," are not financially emancipated and are thus, for most purposes, children.

And college students, by and large, don't do any of this because they know that they are transients, and never intend to live there permanently - unless they are such total losers that they intend to hang on at the university after they graduate - which is rare. Occasonally, a student will set up residence at a remote state school in the hope that by the time they reach their third or fourth year they might benefit from "in-state" tuition. But this is both a sham and a scam, as they will invariably move back HOME upon graduation.

As you very well know, the very idea of letting these children vote in the towns where they are attending school can do nothing but create mischief. You just like the idea that the mischief will be democrat-leaning,since they are largely immature, inexperienced, ignorant twits - just like the average adult democrat.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17257
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Scooter »

What does it say about you that a supposed idiot is always able to successfully deconstruct and demolish every "argument" (I use the term extremely loosely) which you put forward?

Oh yeah, and as to this:
99% of college students who are living on campus (as contrasted with commuting students) are, despite being legal "adults," are not financially emancipated and are thus, for most purposes, children.
There is one and only one authority on who does or does not constitute an adult for voting purposes, and it's called the 26th Amendment. And there's nothing in there requiring financial independence, property ownership, having completed one's education, or any of the other factors you are putting forward as rationalizations for classifying college students as anything other than fully entitled to exercise their right to vote on the same and only those criteria by which every other voter is judged.

And being the strict constructionist that you are, I'm sure you would agree that any attempts to legislate out of such rationalizations that college students are somehow "lesser" adults would be blatantly unconstitutional.
Last edited by Scooter on Wed Mar 09, 2011 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell

quaddriver
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 4:40 am
Location: Wherever the man sends me
Contact:

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by quaddriver »

Scooter wrote:
dgs49 wrote:(1) People should not be able to vote where they don't live
Where one eats and sleeps and works and spends money is where one lives. What other defintion should apply?
and have no vested interest
Says who? College students have no interest in the wellbeing of the communities in which they have chosen to spend, at least, the first four years of their adult lives, and perhaps into the future, if they find full-time employment there?
College students are transients
Making a substantial financial investment to commit to living in a community for at least four years makes someone a transient?
they don't actually live in the college town
According to Dave's dictionary, eating, sleeping, working, and spending money isn't "living"
they own no property there
Neither does anyone else who rents their home. Should we disenfranchise all renters as well?
and they pay no local taxes
If they pay rent and they buy food and clothing and supplies then they are paying local taxes.
They have no interests other than freedom to party and drink
If that were really true, then they would have no interest in voting, so this wouldn't be an issue.
The risk of both fraud and promiscuous voting (electing a dog as mayor) is both troubling and real.
Already addressed and debunked.
College students can file absentee ballots and vote where they actually live, should they choose to do so.
Why should they be required to do so, if they meet the same residence requirements applicable to any other voter?
Nobody is in any danger of being "disenfranchised" by these measures
Of course not. Requiring someone to shell out a hundred bucks for a passport is no impediment to voting.

There's a reason why poll taxes were eliminated, and they shouldn't be able to be reintroduced by stealth through ridiculously restrictive ID requirements.
And the idea that college students "live" in the college towns for four years is also bullshit. They go home on breaks and in the summer. Home. Get it?
I have always visited my parents on holidays and during vacations as well. Does that mean that where I live the majority of the time is not my "home"?[/quote]


again, any student is free to establish themselves as financially emancipated and do as you suggest in the remote neighborhood. However the other requirement be they get mom and dad off the FASFA for tuition help. Most students wont do that, but from your point of view - want 'it' both ways.

Fortunately, the law dont work that way....

(IIRC the law previously allowed students to age 21/22 to be adult 'children' for college purposes. i think that is now raised to 26)

Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Grim Reaper »

dgs49 wrote:As you very well know, the very idea of letting these children vote in the towns where they are attending school can do nothing but create mischief. You just like the idea that the mischief will be democrat-leaning,since they are largely immature, inexperienced, ignorant twits - just like the average adult democrat.
I like how you call college students immature and then proceed to devolve into an amazingly childish rant of your own.

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by dgs49 »

Dear Scooter:

I do not challenge the right of any registered 18-year-old to vote. My challenge is to their "right" to vote in a place where they are mere visitors, as opposed to the place where they actually reside. Living in a frat house, or a dorm, or in an off-campus apartment (which they give up for the Summer) does not constitute being a legal resident of the community. It has been going on literally for centuries, and it never has been considered legal residency for voting purposes.

The only reason it has come up in recent years is because of politically-motivated politicians desiring to take advantage of their naivete and ignorance in local elections - and those politicians are invariably Democrats.

And it's part of a consistent pattern. They want convicted felons to be able to vote. They want illegals to eventually be able to vote. They want people to be able to register casually, while signing up for welfare or a driver's license. It's a pattern. Get as many uninformed, immature, ignorant, and gullible people as possible on the roles. It can't help but benefit the Democrat politicians, who cater to them.

Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Grim Reaper »

They want illegals to eventually be able to vote.
I'm starting to expect this half-assed type of argument from you.

The Democrats fought for the rights of certain children of illegal immigrants to be able to gain citizenship and the right to vote. They were not going for a blanket permission for all illegals.
Get as many uninformed, immature, ignorant, and gullible people as possible on the roles.
You mean like how the Republican Party took advantage of the Tea Party?

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Until the school (university) they go to recognizes them as "local" students and offer them the local tuition (80% less than out of state tuition) then their home district is where their parents (or whomever they call their guardians, aka FASFA rated guardians) are. And it take over two years of permanent residence for the students to claim residency in the colleges home town. Me, She, us pay out of state tuition even though she has rented a house in the area for the last two years. The school will not list her as a local resident until she has been there for two full years and won't give us the local tuition rate until she lisve there for 3 years. She graduates this coming May. Until you get the school and the election board in line
the rest of it is pure semantics.

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by rubato »

dgs49 wrote:Dear Scooter:

I do not challenge the right of any registered 18-year-old to vote. My challenge is to their "right" to vote in a place where they are mere visitors, as opposed to the place where they actually reside. Living in a frat house, or a dorm, or in an off-campus apartment (which they give up for the Summer) does not constitute being a legal resident of the community. It has been going on literally for centuries, and it never has been considered legal residency for voting purposes.
... " .
Stop being such a perfect asshole.

They live in one community for 9 1/2 months of the year and another one for 2 1/2 months. Were would a reasonable person say that they reside? Graduate school or careers will in most cases take them still another direction altogether.

yrs,
rubato

quaddriver
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 4:40 am
Location: Wherever the man sends me
Contact:

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by quaddriver »

rubato wrote:Were would a reasonable person say that they reside?

yrs,
rubato
A reasonable person would look at the address of the tax return that gets them home. If the 'rents are on the FASFA, then they are on the 'rents 1040. Im bettin the 'rents dont list 400 college dorm drive.... this concept really aint THAT hard.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Lord Jim »

I frequently disagree with Dave, but every now and then:
And it's part of a consistent pattern. They want convicted felons to be able to vote. They want illegals to eventually be able to vote. They want people to be able to register casually, while signing up for welfare or a driver's license. It's a pattern. Get as many uninformed, immature, ignorant, and gullible people as possible on the roles. It can't help but benefit the Democrat politicians, who cater to them.
He says something I have a lot of trouble finding an argument with.....
Get as many uninformed, immature, ignorant, and gullible people as possible on the roles.


You mean like how the Republican Party took advantage of the Tea Party?
See Florida Democratic voters, 2000 election, West Palm Beach.....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Timster
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:43 am

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Timster »

Holy Crap!

Next thing you will be telling us that Raygun won the cold war!

Surely the apocalypse is upon us . . . :fu :fu :nana :nana
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer-

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Lord Jim »

Next thing you will be telling us that Raygun won the cold war!
You didn't hear about that Tim?

It was in all the papers....

And now in most of the history books as well.... :nana
ImageImageImage

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Andrew D »

Right next to George Washington and the cherry tree ....

People interested in the truth of the matter, however, could do worse than looking here:
The Myth of the Gipper
Reagan Didn't End the Cold War
By WILLIAM BLUM

Ronald Reagan's biggest crimes were the bloody military actions to suppress social and political change in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Afghanistan, but I'd like to deal here with the media's gushing about Reagan's supposed role in ending the cold war. In actuality, he prolonged it. Here is something I wrote for my book Killing Hope.

It has become conventional wisdom that it was the relentlessly tough anti-communist policies of the Reagan Administration, with its heated-up arms race, that led to the collapse and reformation of the Soviet Union and its satellites. American history books may have already begun to chisel this thesis into marble. The Tories in Great Britain say that Margaret Thatcher and her unflinching policies contributed to the miracle as well. The East Germans were believers too.

When Ronald Reagan visited East Berlin, the people there cheered him and thanked him "for his role in liberating the East". Even many leftist analysts, particularly those of a conspiracy bent, are believers. But this view is not universally held; nor should it be. Long the leading Soviet expert on the United States, Georgi Arbatov, head of the Moscow-based Institute for the Study of the U.S.A. and Canada, wrote his memoirs in 1992. A Los Angeles Times book review by Robert Scheer summed up a portion of it:

Arbatov understood all too well the failings of Soviet totalitarianism in comparison to the economy and politics of the West. It is clear from this candid and nuanced memoir that the movement for change had been developing steadily inside the highest corridors of power ever since the death of Stalin. Arbatov not only provides considerable evidence for the controversial notion that this change would have come about without foreign pressure, he insists that the U.S. military buildup during the Reagan years actually impeded this development.

George F. Kennan agrees. The former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of "containment" of the same country, asserts that "the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." He contends that the extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. "Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union."

Though the arms-race spending undoubtedly damaged the fabric of the Soviet civilian economy and society even more than it did in the United States, this had been going on for 40 years by the time Mikhail Gorbachev came to power without the slightest hint of impending doom. Gorbachev's close adviser, Aleksandr Yakovlev, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded:

It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it.

Understandably, some Russians might be reluctant to admit that they were forced to make revolutionary changes by their arch enemy, to admit that they lost the Cold War. However, on this question we don't have to rely on the opinion of any individual, Russian or American. We merely have to look at the historical facts. From the late 1940s to around the mid-1960s, it was an American policy objective to instigate the downfall of the Soviet government as well as several Eastern European regimes. Many hundreds of Russian exiles were organized, trained and equipped by the CIA, then sneaked back into their homeland to set up espionage rings, to stir up armed political struggle, and to carry out acts of assassination and sabotage, such as derailing trains, wrecking bridges, damaging arms factories and power plants, and so on.

The Soviet government, which captured many of these men, was of course fully aware of who was behind all this. Compared to this policy, that of the Reagan administration could be categorized as one of virtual capitulation.

Yet what were the fruits of this ultra-tough anti-communist policy? Repeated serious confrontations between the United States and the Soviet Union in Berlin, Cuba and elsewhere, the Soviet interventions into Hungary and Czechoslovakia, creation of the Warsaw Pact (in direct reaction to NATO), no glasnost, no perestroika, only pervasive suspicion, cynicism and hostility on both sides.

It turned out that the Russians were human after all -- they responded to toughness with toughness. And the corollary: there was for many years a close correlation between the amicability of US-Soviet relations and the number of Jews allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Softness produced softness. If there's anyone to attribute the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to, both the beneficial ones and those questionable, it is of course Mikhail Gorbachev and the activists he inspired.[-/b]

It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagan's and Thatcher's unremitting malice toward the communist state.


But for those to whom Reagan was the living incarnation of all things good -- Jesus Christ running a far distant second -- facts have never mattered.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
Timster
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:43 am

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Timster »

Oh yes I did. However the yellow press that passes for honest journalism skewed the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine

And I am trying to be nice here. :D Back track to a "Cold War" reference on WIKI and it begins to unravel fairly quickly.
the 1980s, under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States increased diplomatic, military, and economic pressures on the Soviet Union, at a time when the nation was already suffering economic stagnation. In the late 1980s, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the liberalizing reforms of perestroika ("reconstruction", "reorganization", 1987) and glasnost ("openness", ca. 1985). The Cold War ended after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, leaving the United States as the dominant military power, and Russia possessing most of the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. The Cold War and its events have had a significant impact on the world today, and it is commonly referred to in popular culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War


Just saying. The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse regardless of any outside influence.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing mind you. But the suggestion that 'Saint Ronny' was the savior of the World is too much for me to bite off my friend. He was a figurehead. An actor. In a play that neither you or I will ever be the benefactors nor understand the consequences.

I have more, but I don't want to totally piss you off.

Peace,

Tim 8-)
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer-

User avatar
Timster
Posts: 967
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:43 am

Re: Republicans want to disenfranchise an entire generation

Post by Timster »

God dammit Andrew! You are fast.. ok please ignore the above post.

Because Jesus is coming soon, and man is He pissed off!
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer-

Post Reply