For fuck sake. Who cares about civil or respectful? Truthful trumps all of that shit.
Why? Because it’s a woman who kicked a man? She kicked him, unprovoked, and you think it’s not ‘real’ assault?
He’s not a high school student? My mistake. Somehow after the derailment, I had forgotten the ‘College’ part.
I still wonder if you’d find this so ‘trivial’ had a male instructor kicked a female student while at a restaurant off campus over something so unprovoking as a t-shirt.
I care about it, because I can’t ever know for sure that I have the truth. So I gotta keep searching for it. And people who discuss with me in a civil and respectful way are far likelier to help me get closer to the truth than people who discuss things in a disrespectful, uncivil, disingenuous fashion.
Daniel
Yes. It’s not the gender that matters; it’s the lack of injury.
Now, I may be wrong. It may be that the kickee ended up having to get stitches, or ended up bleeding from the leg, or something like that. I’ll even admit that I may have missed a line in the “news” story to that effect.
But that’s not the impression I got. The impression I got was that the kickee sustained no injury at all, that he didn’t go to the hospital, that he didn’t collapse to the ground in pain. The impression I got is that he’s trying to make hay from a blade of grass.
Daniel
That’s a fair characterization, I think. As I said earlier, if he did sue, and I were on the jury, I’d probably find her liable, all right, but damages for him in the amount of $3.65 – a penny a day for a year. He got his apology, she is exposed as a reactionary idiot, and that’s where the matter should end.
Would that be your view about people who couldn’t pass a literacy test? Like this one that used to be typical
How about people too stupid to be able to make enough money to pay a poll tax? Should they vote?
How about explaining why anyone who hasn’t been convicted of anything should be denied the right to vote? Or do you seriously claim that having police waiting at polling places looking for things to arrest people for is simply a fucking coincidence? Whatever gave you the idea that those of us reading your rationalizations are stupid enough to buy them?
It’s funny, Elvis1Lives, but there have been several threads complaining about how stupid Bush voters are, and how they don’t understand basic issues. I’ve even responded in those threads, asking if there should be some sort of test before voting. Answers have varied.
Truth told, I would not categorically rule out a test of some kind. Obviously, unlike the historically reviled literacy test, it would have to be administered to everyone, and I think the practical difficulties of testing some sort of basic knowledge in a non-partisan way would ultimately prove too difficult to enact. But in theory, I don’t believe that some sort of basic test is a bad idea.
But the basic test of: getting yourself to the polling place on the correct day, and pressing forward with your right to vote even if there are police officers in the room, and not being deterred by rumors of debt collectors… yes, I support THAT intelligence test. You can’t pass that one, you shouldn’t vote.
Money woes may affect people no matter their intelligence. So I don’t agree that the mere fact of being unable to pay a poll tax is indicative of stupidity. (But I would suggest that the Republic of Gondor didn’t have such a terrible idea in principle, either).
Well, reading your posts for the last few months left me with the idea that you’re pretty dumb. That was a start.
Again: if you are scared away from a voting place merely because law enforcement officers are there, then I don’t particularly care if you vote.
But is placing law enforcement officers at the polling place to scare away a known subset of voters ethical? If you had the power to do it, would you?
I would not. Even if it would make the difference between my candidate winning or losing, I could not do it.
Using law enforcement officers for any function other than enforcing the law is questionable. Using them for partisan purposes is certainly unethical.
And I assume you’re equally satisfied with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the two federal judges were in error, and the plan is NOT illegal. The Supreme Court refused to stay the 6th circuit decision; that call was made by one of the most liberal members of the Court: John Paul Stevens.
- Rick
No, I’m not equally satisfied with it; I think it was the wrong call. But I accept it.
Daniel
That from someone who claims elsewhere to be a strict interpreter of the Constitution? Bullcrap. Rationalization of knee-jerk partisanship is more like it. You’re fooling no one but yourself.
The level of ignorance of our history and our society indicated by that response puts your own qualification to vote, by your own standards, in grave doubt, ya know. That was the point of asking you about Jim Crow voting laws - I really don’t see how you can differentiate your current views from the ones the rest of us have outgrown and repudiated long ago. But the only way you can respond is on this level:
You have officially placed yourself on the Shodan level of thoughtfulness and respectability. Congratulations.
You probably should avoid using words you don’t understand.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow. I thoughtlessly insulted you, when you had been nothing but civil and nice to me, huh?
Oh, wait. That’s not what happened. You remind me of my little brother when he was four. He’d hit me, I’d hit him back, and then he’d go screeching off to Mom whining that I hit him.
Gosh but your vagina must be sandy if you are so cranky! And to think, you have had so much good news recently. First, John Howard gets a resounding victory for his party over in Australia, and tonight you can celebrate the Bush victory with us. That should be enough to make even a sourpuss like you happy!
This confirms for all what I’ve known for a long time: you’re a fucking idiot! Actually they congratulate him for not falling for your simpering line of shit.