If only they had the benevolent kind of literacy tests back then these guys wouldn't have been bitten by dogs and hosed down like that. Couldn't they just see that there is no problem with being literate?
I don't think you get it. We are not doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. A 1912 literacy test does not have to have the same unconsocienable motive as a 2012 literacy test. We do have requirements for voter eligibility. Should we just get rid of all of them since they limit the opportunity to vote to those deemed "worthy?" Tea Party Fireworks: Speaker Rips McCain, Obama, 'Cult of Multiculturalism' Ex-Rep. Tom Tancredo Suggests 'Civics, Literacy Test' Would Have Foiled Obama's Election; High-Priced National 'Tea Party' Convention Stirs Debate Among Factions By STEVEN PORTNOY and JOHN BERMAN NASHVILLE, Tenn., Feb. 4, 2010 The opening-night speaker at first ever National Tea Party Convention ripped into President Obama, Sen. John McCain and "the cult of multiculturalism," asserting that Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country." The political activist group holds its first party convention in Nashville. The speaker, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., told about 600 delegates in a Nashville, Tenn., ballroom that in the 2008 election, America "put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House ... Barack Hussein Obama." Tancredo did not stop at the Democratic president -- ripping McCain, R-Ariz., the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, for shaping up to be a repeat of "Bush 1 and Bush 2." "Thank God John McCain lost the election," he said, voicing his belief that McCain would have presided over big budgets and lacked a tough stand against immigration. Tancredo served 10 years in the House of Representatives and made a name for himself with his ardent opposition to immigration. He believes the 2008 election served to galvanize the right. "This is our country," he told the crowd. "Let's take it back." Tancredo's speech received enthusiastic applause at times, but the crowd did not fill the large ballroom at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center. Rancor Among Tea Party Factions? As opponents of big government converged on what has been billed as the first national tea party convention, organizers hoped the event would further "galvanize" the populist movement and help it gather momentum after a string of recent conservative electoral victories. But some wondered what gave organizers the right to hold the event in the first place, never mind to charge hundreds of dollars for admission. "Nobody really is entitled to stand up and say, 'This is the National Tea Party anything,'" conservative blogger Dan Riehl said of the three-day convention being put on by a Nashville-based defense attorney, Judson Phillips, and his wife. Phillips told ABC News that he put the convention together to try to harness the political power of the tea party movement, which helped fuel rallies and marches last summer, and helped mobilize support for Scott Brown last month in Massachusetts. Organizers said some 600 attendees have paid $549 for access to two full days of events that culminate Saturday evening in a keynote speech by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at a banquet that reportedly will feature a lobster-and-steak dinner. While the convention itself is sold out, tickets to the banquet only were still on sale late Wednesday for $349. So far, organizers said, more than 500 banquet-only tickets have been sold. The high price of entry to an event that celebrates grass roots, open-air activism has offended many in the Tea Party tent. In fact, some tea party factions are furious. "When somebody steps up and says their purpose in putting on a convention like this is to make a profit, that's really the antithesis of a grass roots movement," said Mark Meckler, of the Tea Party Patriots faction. In a mid-January post on his blog, "Riehl World View," Riehl questioned whether Phillips "wants to be a tea party millionaire." "[Tea party activists] generally are not the type of people who would gravitate to some very expensive hotel to dine on lobster and steak and listen to someone speak," Riehl said in an interview Wednesday. Convention spokesman Mark Skoda acknowledged Wednesday that Phillips and his wife, Sherry Phillips, founders of the for-profit Tea Party Nation Inc., will "make a few bucks" on the event. But Skoda questioned why that should be anyone's concern. "Have we gone so far in the Obama-socialist view of the nation that 'profit' is a bad word -- in particular, if we're using it to advance the conservative cause?" Skoda asked. The convention plans to feature a lecture called, "Correlations Between the Current Administration and Marxist dictators in Latin America." Can you provide us with the detail about that? I will when I get the chance. Your mistake is thinking I know nothing about them. I think you have unintentionally been mis-representing some things here. Did I say or not say that racism is foolish? What do you think that says about repeating mistakes from the past? Do you just say what you want without paying attention to my responses? I'm a big proponent of neighborhood school. People can live where they want and should be able to go to the local school. Ugh. Is an age requirement to vote also oppressive?
That is just low-down, cowardly and dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself. I guess that means you're losing.
Not if there is no "organization." If some Rocket fan club somewhere had some members who acted up in some way and embarassed most Rockets fans and thrilled a few.... what would be your responsibility? Should you be slandered along with the perpetrators for merely associating with the "same" organization which is really no organization-- no rules, no control, no cohesion.
So to recognize the autonomy of the various and dispersed Tea Party groups which have virtually no affiliation with one another and to appreciate that that it would seem that most Tea Partiers do not subscribe to the beliefs of the most extreme members is equivalent to hosing down protesters? You are losing, too. Now all we lack is Batman and SamFisher to show up at the last minute and defecate in the thread.
Look at the words to TAncredo's speech. It is the same motive behind the other literacy tests. The proof is there. I'm not sure what it says that you can't see it. These people were killed so they could eliminate the literacy test requirement to vote. Sorry if someone saying they should bring it back to keep the people who voted for Obama from voting. That is what Tancredo said, and what you are defending, somehow bothers you. An age requirement is not oppressive and never has been. The literacy test for voting has never been anything but oppressive. Think about what you are advocating. If you can't think of that, think of those that sacrificed to get rid of the policy and the significance of bring that policy back.
Sample literacy test (AL) found here: http://www.crmvet.org/info/litapp.htm 17 questions. According to the site, the major abuse of voter registration literacy tests was to manipulate the primaries. The problem was the form itself, it had no place to declare a party affiliation and the party officials could basically hand-pick who would be allowed to vote in the primary. If we put a place to elect party affiliation on the "test," would you guys be okay with it? Naturalization literacy test: http://www.texancultures.utsa.edu/newtexans/literacy.htm Much, much tougher.
The main problem was that they didn't have a place to put party affiliation? The main problem is that literacy tests were used to keep minorities from voting. Yes becoming a citizen test is difficult. That doesn't have anything to do with the literacy tests.
You are now in full retreat. Quite kidding around. That omission was the mechanism through which they could manipulate the voter turnout in the primaries. You try to make it sound like a reading/writing thing solely. If they had had the party affiliation box, would the abuse have been rampant.
No it doesn't but it does provide a more balanced perspective-- which seems ultimately honest and fair.
No, if I were one of the fans who was embarrassed, I would stand up and give the miscreants a piece of my mind. I would read them the riot act, decry them at every opportunity, and do everything possible to distance myself and make it known that the views of the ones with whom I disagreed were odious to me. I would not defend them, minimize their actions, rationalize their behavior, or ask for proof that the despicable behavior took place.
Giddy, the test itself was the mechanism with which they could reject minority voters. People didn't sacrifice their lives, face police dogs, and fire hoses because the party affiliation was left off of the form.
And exactly how would you do that? There is no central place no organization to discipline the group. How would you read the riot act to some group of fans in Connecticut or Missouri or Nevada? What would your opportunity to do that be? How ya gonna make it happen? How can you cite despicable behavior and respond to it punitively when there is some disagreement about what actually happened? All we have is eyewitness reportage which is notoriously unreliable. I have not rationalized bad behavior. I have said don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I would assert that you would and are prosecuting this so vigorously because you like the way it lines up. That's just human.
It was the way it was used that caused the discrimination. The focal point of abuse was the lack of party designation which allowed EVERYTHING in the primary to be manipulated by controlling who voted. IF we had similar process today, do you see ANYONE being able to reproduce that cheating system? If YES, how so? If you looked at the sample Alabama piece, I would compare it to a census form on steroids-- making sure who you are and where you have been so as to preclude fraud. 17 questions. One sentence responses.
