If by inclusive you mean catering to a favorable Liberal demographic, I agree!
I have seen the light.
I don’t know what they have to say, It makes no difference anyway – Whatever it is, I’m against it! No matter what it is or who commenced it, I’m against it!
Believe it or not, some RWs are actually prepared to argue the contrary – see this thread and this thread.
What, you’re saying it doesn’t happen? Were you asleep in 2004?
Hello, is this Fatted Calfs 'R Us? Yeah, I’m giving a prodigal son party for Kearsen, want to check prices…Really! That much? Hmmm. How much for a quarter pound of veal?
Because… encouraging more people to participate in a democracy is inherently a bad thing?
Because… The government should be the size where you can strangle it in a bathtub?
If you habitually put (R) after your name, there is lots wrong. The majority of the non-voters are disillusioned poor. If you get more people to vote (just more people, in a non-partisan fashion), you will by definition get more poor people voting, who tend to vote for the “other” party. More participation = less chance of the (R) getting into office.
This is why the Republicans must be anti-registration, anti-participation. Then they have to frame this in terms of “fraud prevention”
ACORN does not target a political philosophy, they target communities and inner cities. Their golas are very similar in many ways to the Democrats, but their mission is to the inner city not the Democratic Party. As others have mentioned if anybody else wishes to enact a different focus…rural areas, trailer parks, whatever, that’s fine.
That’s not the only argument they use. There’s also a variation of the “no true Scotsman” argument: that the voters that need to be recruited and encouraged to vote like this are not the best people to take part in choosing the government. That is, those who vote anyway are those who take a proper interest in government, and take the trouble to be informed on political issues. So, the fewer that vote, the better the voters will be at electing the best candidates, and hence the better those that they elect will be.
Try, because the government shouldn’t need to subsidize itself…
Yeah, like that snotty little bitch Al Hamilton! Wish it was Tom Paine who shot him.
You’re not clear on this whole “voting” thing, are you? The government is not “subsidizing itself” by encouraging more people to register and vote.
I was responding to Sinaijon’s claim that getting mainly Democratic voters out to the polls was equivalent to suppressing the voice of Republican voters.
Which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the democratic theory – in H.L. Mencken’s words, “the idea that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
We are not all equally moral, or equally intelligent, or equally wise, or equally sophisticated. But we are all equal in one respect: We all have to live in the same society and under the same government. Whatever government decides to do, or not to do, we all have to live with the consequences equally.
Citizens of a democracy are not allowed to vote so they can give the body politic the benefit of their wisdom, such as it is. They are allowed to vote so they can defend their own interests. They are allowed to vote so they can make their will known and, to some limited extent, acted upon.
WRT disenfranchisement of blacks in South Africa, even William F. Buckley once responded to a defender who called the blacks ignorant or stupid, “Democracy is not an intelligence test. It is a way of saying no.”