And by the way, since I’m being asked about condemning things…
The school has absolutely zero liability for this incident, unless it should develop that they encouraged their employees to assault others based on their political view. If the assaulted student sues the school, he’s an idiot.
On the other hand, he has every right to seek remedies at law against the teacher, personally. He has no obligation to accept her apology and let it go at that, although that would clearly be a wise and noble thing to do. But if he feels he was damaged - and he was assaulted - he has every right to sue the teacher and collect whatever damages he can prove. (I suspect, were I on that jury, I’d probably find her liable, but I’d be fixing his damages at about $3.65.)
Perhaps I both read the article AND Control-F’ed it. It wasn’t very long. I don’t see why their putting in, taking out, and putting in is far-fetched. It happens routinely with Internet news stories. Quite obviously, the report I read was different from the report you read since it was more than three minutes between your post and my clicking it. Why you always want to die on this sort of hill is a mystery.
Do you not agree that this has the practical effect of slowing down lines? Do you not find it disturbing that they are doing this primarily in heavily democratic (black) precincts? It will probably scare away more legal voters than illegal voters. Don’t give me that bullshit about only wrongdoers have anything to fear. A lot of people will leave just to avoid being harrassed.
Bricker, I’ve respected you in the past, but if you fail to explicitly condemn this practice here and now, I’m officially declaring you as having no soul or conscience.
Because of whose ox is being gored. Prisons are not heavily populated by conservatives. This is not to say that most, or even very many, liberals are criminals, but most criminals are not of the conservative mindset. Therefore, if you eliminate felon votes, you eliminate a source of predominately liberal – or at least Democrat – votes.
In my last post, I advocated checking both sides in case of question. How can that be construed as burdensome to one segment of the population?
I agree with you that elections should be cleaned up, but it should not be a hallmark of either party. Apparently, both sides have failed to address the issues. These laws didn’t come up like dandelions this past Spring-more than one administration has had the opportunity to root them out.
Given the current winner-take-all electoral process in most states, it makes logical sense to concentrate efforts on those states where the vote is close to being evenly split. I’m in one of those states, so if my wait tomorrow is a long one, then so be it.
In no way do I view scrutiny of elegibility to be a “trick”. Attempting to vote when one is not elegibile is a trick.
Heh. Irony strikes again. But thanks for proving my point about your willingness to admit when you’re wrong.
And in this incident you came along before the offending party apologized? It seems pretty analogous to me (except, of course, for the seriousness of the offense or the relation of the offender to the national party in question).
I agree with your post about the guy’s suing the school, and his rights to sue the woman who kicked him. Yes, he’s got a right to sue her; no, I don’t see it as a very significant case. Indeed, if I were trying to come up with a parody of the Republican Martyr Complex, I doubt I could do better than a college guy getting kicked in the shins by a little old lady and claiming voter intimidation. [sub]details added for comedic effect; I don’t know the lady’s size or age, or location of kick on legs.[/sub]
Spun like Rove himself. They did it. They planned it. They got caught doing it. They got smacked down by John Law. In Brickerspeak, that means they “repudiated” it and it is a sign of their superior honor.
So you would welcome illegally cast ballots because they support your side?
Kindly don’t pretend to know my morals, because you haven’t a fucking clue. I’ve previously stated that I don’t want illegal votes. If the Democrats could show that the GOP was trying to stuff the ballot box with persons not entitled to cast a ballot, I would decry such practice in a heartbeat, and volunteer to help have them removed.
What you advocated is fine. What the Ohio Republicans proposed is not: they’re concentrating efforts in predominately Democratic areas, using a method that risks slowing the voting lines down enough that some people won’t get a chance to vote.
Again, if they’d started on the issue earlier (which is why I’d said “if Republicans had made it a hallmark of their tenure in control of the entire US government,” not because I think it should be a specifically Republican issue), that’d be cool: they could’ve done it in a way that wouldn’t risk losing votes. But the way they’re trying to solve the problem is unacceptable: it risks creating more problems than it promises to solve.
In fairness, I have to say Blalron’s point is valid as well. But are we to give felons a free pass because to attempt to catch them would dissuade others who have every right to vote from doing so because of the hassle?
It’s a conundrum, but most generally in our society criminals are not given a free pass because of inconvenience to the populace, and I don’t see where the best interests of a free and fair election can be unheld by allowing illegal votes in order not to inconvenience or intimidate would-be voters.
Huh? What do you call the fourth amendment, then, if not a boon given to criminals in order not to inconvenience innocent people? What do you call “innocent until proven guilty”? Our society is predicated on the notion that you may not strip rights from people without due process, even if this means that sometimes criminals get to get away with things.
Clean up elections, yes. But don’t set up partisan efforts to decrease legitimate votes with the smokescreen that you’re trying to catch illegitimate voters. That don’t fly, and I got two judges who agree with me.
In the black community, lots of law-abiding folk indeed fear the presence of police. With good reasons in both ancient and recent history, whether we’re talking about Sheriff Jim Clark’s dogs and firehoses, “driving while black”, or state cops showing up at the homes of elderly blacks in FL who wanted to vote absentee this year.
And I would aver that the right to vote, if it be a right (which unfortunately seems to be a disputed point), is sufficiently important that persons should be able to vote without having to be concerned with being nabbed for unpaid parking tickets, outstanding child support, and the like. Which is exactly what a number of mailings to black communities in different parts of the country have threatened this fall.
If you want to defend actions like these, be my guest. The reality is that for whatever reasons, black Americans are much more likely to have had minor to middling brushes with the law than white Americans. To use that fact to reduce their participation in our democracy under the aegis of ‘law-abiding folk have nothing to fear’ is something I regard as no better than bullying.
Which is fine for me and you. But it puts the greatest burden on those with the fewest resources and the most burdens. The single mom juggling job and child-rearing, or anyone squeezing in their trip to the polls between their day job and their part-time job at night, may just not have room in their life to “shoulder through.” In part, this is what the harassers…er, challengers…are counting on.
This is not how democracy is supposed to work. This is not justice; it’s a finger on the scales of justice. It’s a way of ensuring that certain groups are underrepresented. If this sort of thing were happening in a banana republic, I could understand it. But we’re supposedly a “city on a hill,” in Reagan’s words. (Well, Jesus’ words originally, but Jesus wasn’t talking about America as an example to the world. Reagan was.)
And this still chafes me: that anything one individual registered as a member of one party or the other does, could somehow remotely balance against the institutional actions of the other party’s organization.
It sounds to me as if, if I came up with one instance of a Republican (or a Democrat, either way) killing his wife, that would somehow trump everything in this whole discussion. Which it shouldn’t.
But I suspect he’s (she’s?) not on your side: he comes across as less partisan, more fair, about the issue than you do, and might not WANT you on his side.
Excuse me, LHoD, but I call due process due process. Felons have already had it. The country is not predicated on allowing convicted criminals to engage in legally prohibited activity so as to benefit a particular political party.
So much for your high-handed (and typically wrong-headed) rebuttal.
