Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see many people writing that we are democracy which is incorrect, we are a republic. In a republic, the idea is that you elect a representative to make hard decisions on complex matters. With that in mind, a literacy or civics test would be right in line with the type of system we currently have. However it probably should be extended to the people running for office as well.
The tea party people are reflective of a segment of our society, that has a hard time identifying with an intelligent leader. They prefer someone who can deliver one liners and senseless babble. Other than that, I have a lot of respect for them.
Once again, another article not backed up by any substancial facts or events.
Tom Tarencdo comes off as a bigot, that much I agree. However, he has not called for race-based tests (which is what was done in the south), rather than basic civic literacy tests.
All this adds up to another "If you don't like socialism, you're racist" thread started by the left.
Tom Tarencdo comes off as a bigot, that much I agree. However, he has not called for race-based tests (which is what was done in the south), rather than basic civic literacy tests.
OK, let's ignore the historical context of calling for such tests, coupled with the fact that the last presidential election saw a large turnout of black voters
Stay in your little bubble of ignorance and peachy-keen fantasy
While I'm not part of the tea party movement, I don't think I'd be against making sure that people that vote are actually literate and understand basic US civics. Civics went out the window in the schools so why not have mandatory 1-2 hour classes on civics before elections and if they are illiterate then "sorry Joe..go learn to read and write and come back next year".
Nothing racist about that..being illiterate is non-discriminatory.
It's highly discriminatory. You think all students in the US get equal educations? You think it's their fault?
No, it's not discriminatory. It demands that a potential voter actually knows and understands what he/she is doing when they cast that vote.
Reading helps to actually READ the voting screen.
Let's say you have 9 new potential amendments up for vote.
How do you think that illiterate person will vote ?
No, it's not discriminatory. It demands that a potential voter actually knows and understands what he/she is doing when they cast that vote.
Reading helps to actually READ the voting screen.
Let's say you have 9 new potential amendments up for vote.
How do you think that illiterate person will vote ?
Well lets start by getting rid of the fool who thinks we vote on Federal amendments.
It's highly discriminatory. You think all students in the US get equal educations? You think it's their fault?
It doesn't matter whose fault it is. We don't let unqualified people perform brain surgery, or do any number of other things. I guess that's discriminatory too, in some sense of cosmic justice, but I don't see people complaining about it. There's no reason we ought to tolerate unqualified voters if there is a practical way to avoid it (I am still agnostic on whether there actually is).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
