NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite one hundred and forty years of progress in the reduction and elimination of racist practices, the Congress of the United States decided to punish Southern states for another 25. The South has been subject to federal oversight ever since the Civil War, with more recently enacted oversight in the form of the Voting Rights Act. Congress has once again, shown it's predjudice against Southern states by renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act without any amendments, for another 25 years.

Clearly, the country cannot make progress in accomplishing racial equality until a couple things happen. The first is that all states are treated equally. The second is that the professional victims of racism have got to retire. Mainly, I'm talking about the brave men and women that did bring about huge change during the sixties. Unfortunately, they cannot bring themselves to see the world in any other light but the one that lit it during those terrible days. I don't think they would recognize progress if an Alabama trooper beat them with it.

I don't care much about what our European and Canadian friends think, but I'd love to hear from some of you Southerners about the VRA extension. Nazz are you awake this morning?

[edit]
Most all of you are reading this post and replying. Fine, there's more to this thread than I expected to see. But I think I'd like you to see my recap from post 12? before you post the same ignorant, bigoted junk as everyone else. How about a real reason for the continuation of states rights suppression in the South?

[from later in the thread]

I've seen some pretty darn good arguments in favor of continuing to punish the South for the Civil War. The best one is from Ms Demipublicents, when she argued that ID cards were an illegal practice. Turns out that we Southerners can police ourselves because there are two stays of that law. Therefore, no voter will be required to identify themselves in a verifiable manner, come election day.

The second argument that caught my attention was the typical liberal "But it's good" argument. The second part of that argument was "Because Southerners are bigots." That doesn't really do much for me, but I guess that's what passes for critical thinking among liberals now.

The conclusion that I'm going to reach is that there are no valid arguments for the extension of the VRA and its selective application in areas of the South. But I've already told that to the people who matter -- my Congressman and my Senators.

Yes we'll rally round the flag, boys,
we'll rally once again,
Shouting the battle-cry of freedom,
And we bear the glorious stars for the
Union and the right,
Shouting the battle-cry of freedom.

We will meet the rebel host, boys,
with fearless heart and true,
Shouting the battle-cry of freedom,
And we'll show what Uncle Sam has for
loyal men to do,
Shouting the battle-cry of freedom.

If we fall amid the fray, boys,
we'll face them to the last,
Shouting the battle-cry of freedom,
And our comrades brave shall hear us,
as they go rushing past,
Shouting the battle-cry of freedom.

Yes, for Liberty and Union we're springing
to the fight,
Shouting the battle-cry of freedom,
And the vict'ry shall be ours, for we're
rising in our might,
Shouting the battle-cry of freedom

Refrain:
The Union forever, Hurrah! boys, Hurrah!
Down with the traitor, up with the star,
For we're marching to the field boys,
going to the fight,
Shouting the battle-cry of freedom!

Oh, you poor Southerners. Not allowed to discriminate against people anymore. You'll get no sympathy from me about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

New York is a southern state? Peachy.

Buddy, I've seen more of the south than I'd care to, and I think the last thing you people want is to require literacy tests for voters. :D
(yes, that is a knock on the general intelligence of the southern population)

What I find is odd is that a lot of people who haven't been to the South in their lives have the idea that it's EXACTLY the same as is was in 1960.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's also appalling to me that a law concerning voting rights could be deliberately written to impose stricter oversight on some states and not on all states.

So I guess the racism that I saw in action in Minnesota is OK, because Minnesota isn't one of those states that fought against the Union.

Quiet Northern racism = Good

Southern state = Bad, no matter what they do

Hey, I live in the South and I see what he's saying. What happened back in the 19th century wasn't right. Nobody nowadays that I know of is for racism. However, the times were different and slavery was "the norm" and a necessity because the chesapeake (AKA The South) was nothing but farming. They had to have slaves to keep everything going. Hell, Lincoln didn't immediately free them b/c he knew it would destroy the economy and farms in the South.

It took many years after the Civil War for slaves to be free. Now move to the 21st century. Where racism shouldn't exist, but it does b/c of bad history and people who take advantage of that particular moment in US history.

People who do that should be ashamed. Nobody should have to pay back anyone for what our ancestors did 200-250 years ago. I did not personally go and tell you to go work in the fields! People who keep pushing and pulling the racist card are the ones continuing racism in this nation and not the other way around.

I don't quite see how the South can be considered as salonfahig as long as there is one SINGLE SOUTHRON who does not speak about the Rebs with loathing and disgust in his voice.

I don't think they would recognize progress if an Alabama trooper beat them with it. Oh oh oh...shame on your for such a cheesy construction...
I don't care much about what our European and Canadian friends think, but I'd love to hear from some of you Southerners about the VRA extension. Nazz are you awake this morning?
Then go find a US forum, baby...this ain't it.

Awwww ... poor Southern States ... can't stop negroes from voting yet again. Poor, poor babies.

Yes, by the way, I am Texan.

Awwww ... poor Southern States ... can't stop negroes from voting yet again. Poor, poor babies.

Yes, by the way, I am Texan.


You renegade you!
:fluffle:

And it looks like a great Act...I can't see why you think you should oppose it, unless you somehow think that literacy=voting for who you support.

Despite one hundred and forty years of progress in the reduction and elimination of racist practices, the Congress of the United States decided to punish Southern states for another 25. The South has been subject to federal oversight ever since the Civil War, with more recently enacted oversight in the form of the Voting Rights Act. Congress has once again, shown it's predjudice against Southern states by renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act without any amendments, for another 25 years.

Clearly, the country cannot make progress in accomplishing racial equality until a couple things happen. The first is that all states are treated equally. The second is that the professional victims of racism have got to retire. Mainly, I'm talking about the brave men and women that did bring about huge change during the sixties. Unfortunately, they cannot bring themselves to see the world in any other light but the one that lit it during those terrible days. I don't think they would recognize progress if an Alabama trooper beat them with it.

I don't care much about what our European and Canadian friends think, but I'd love to hear from some of you Southerners about the VRA extension. Nazz are you awake this morning?

If it'll make you feel any better, I think ALL states ought to have voting oversight. *nod*

I sincerely hope this is a joke. At least, trying to use the tired old "Southerners are racist" stereotype in a joke seems better than having someone confrim it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

New York is a southern state? Peachy.

Alaska too, it seems.

Anyways, I've lived in the South for most of my life. It isn't the 60's. These days, people try much harder to hide the racism and have more subtle ways of trying to keep certain ethnicities "in their place." You have to go to the more rural areas to see outspoken racism. It is there, however, just as you can find racism anywhere. I, for one, see little if any problem with the VRA.

You know what you should do? Secede from the Union. That'll show us Yankees!

I'd prefer it if the VRA were applied to ALL states and territories. Mind you, the "bailout" requirements are not tremendously onerous; if a county can't meet them, maybe the VRA is needed.

Other than the outbursts by people like John Lewis and Jesse Jackson, what real evidence is there that Southern states need federal oversight for voting matters?

If it'll make you feel any better, I think ALL states ought to have voting oversight. *nod*
Isn't that covered in the several amendments to the Constitution that made voting a right?

Isn't that covered in the several amendments to the Constitution that made voting a right?

To a certain extent, yes. However, the states have a right to decide the parameters of voting qualifications within the limits of the COnstitution. For instance; states cannot disqualify voters based on age(if over 18), gender and race. What the Voting Rights Act was designed to protect against was racial discrimination by proxy. Certain states, counties and towns were finding ways to eliminate minority voters by making voting qualifications that many minority voters couldn't meet(like literacy requirements at the time).

A good example of a voting decision that states CAN make regards felons.

In some states, a convicted felon cannot vote while serving time. In some states they can. In some states, convicted felons can never vote again, even after their time is served. This is a state-by-state issue. At least it is for now.

In some states, a convicted felon cannot vote while serving time. In some states they can. In some states, convicted felons can never vote again, even after their time is served. This is a state-by-state issue. At least it is for now.

though since this is rather clearly taking advantage of the racist slant to the justice system to disproportionately disenfranchise minorities, i expect that eventually this will be somewhat standardized and felons will all at least get the vote back once they are released.

considering that what constitutes a felony is a completely arbitrary political decision anyway, i don't really understand the justification for any of it.

though since this is rather clearly taking advantage of the racist slant to the justice system to disproportionately disenfranchise minorities, i expect that eventually this will be somewhat standardized and felons will all at least get the vote back once they are released.

considering that what constitutes a felony is a completely arbitrary political decision anyway, i don't really understand the justification for any of it.

You're not alone. There's been a slowly building voice about that. In five to ten years, it'll become a national political issue. Mark my words. *nod*

I actually fail to see whats wrong with this act. Southerners scared the big ol' bad Federal gov'mint is gonna stop them being even passively racist and bigoted?

I'm from the South and I...honestly couldn't care less.

Yeah how dare they blame the south for lynching niggers.

OK I have read the thread... I am a US citizen by birth, I do live in the South.
With that stated I by no means am remotely close to what people "think/stereotype" a real southern person to be. Honestly I do not see all the racism that outsiders claim the south has a market on. It is no more racist here than any other place I have lived, just a few louder voices here.
Ignorance is not just isolated to the south.

I was born in St. Louis, grew up in Southern California, & moved to the deep south (FL/AL). I have stayed a bit in Northern England. It seems to me Northern England & the Southern United States share a lot of the same views if you pull out the few vocal people. In saying that let me explain... sometimes the smallest population has the biggest mouth, meaning the racist individuals. If I were to listen to the few "voices" that squawk around me I would think that the North of England might someday have a Klan there. *shakes head* as it is mostly a caucasian population. I was told that blacks are looked at about as bad as Americans there. Should I have been insulted that an entire nation hates me because of the counrty I come from? I think not. The people I met were lovely and the one LOUD voice did not make up for a community of quiet ones.

SO... I digress sorry

Voting should not be based on literacy... many people may be very knowledgable of the issues at hand but not able to read. So does that mean their rights should be taken away? They are less important? I say NO!

My mother is very knowledgeable, but she had a brain tumor which has left her with a lasting deficit. She is unable to write or process numbers anymore, she can still read and hear though, and though her speaking is a series of broken syllables, she still can speak well enough for most people with a bit of patience to understand. So is she to be denied voting?

Maybe this will open a few eyes/ears... but more than likely it won't.
If you have questions on the Act just read it yourself... I am not here to bash anyone or change what they think. All I can do is state my mind and pass on links for you to read, so you can form your own educated opinion... I assume you are literate *grins* yeah that was a feeble attempt at sarcasm.

pet
p.s.
Voting is privilege not a right. Maybe that is where we should start...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101910.html

Oh oh oh...shame on your for such a cheesy construction...

Shucks, I thought that was a clever way to emphasize my idea that the folks in question were a little hidebound.

Despite one hundred and forty years of progress in the reduction and elimination of racist practices, the Congress of the United States decided to punish Southern states for another 25. The South has been subject to federal oversight ever since the Civil War, with more recently enacted oversight in the form of the Voting Rights Act. Congress has once again, shown it's predjudice against Southern states by renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act without any amendments, for another 25 years.

Oh good on them! I thought the Republicrats didn't have the backbone to cross the line on this one. Sometimes I prefer to be wrong.

Sorry, but let's be realistic: The voting rights act harms no one except racists who want to impose racism into voting law. The South is only being punished if it doesn't want to let people of other races vote. If that's the case, what's wrong with "punishing" them for something that they are doing wrong?

I'm going to remind you that 50 years of working for equal rights (hardly 140, unless Jim Crow had something to do with equality :rolleyes: ) still has not solved every part of the problem.

Awwww ... poor Southern States ... can't stop negroes from voting yet again. Poor, poor babies.

Yes, by the way, I am Texan.

They'll wait until Katherine Harris starts the seminars :D

Sorry, but let's be realistic: The voting rights act harms no one except racists who want to impose racism into voting law. The South is only being punished if it doesn't want to let people of other races vote. If that's the case, what's wrong with "punishing" them for something that they are doing wrong?

I'm going to remind you that 50 years of working for equal rights (hardly 140, unless Jim Crow had something to do with equality :rolleyes: ) still has not solved every part of the problem.
The idea the the VRA harms no one is absolutely not true. The idea that it is a good law is equally wrong. There is a particular section that requires _any_ change in voting procedures to be precleared by federal authorities. This is a provision of law that is not applied uniformly across the fifty states. All or none are the only good choices when it comes time to renew this act, but our Congress is still pandering to Jesse Jackson.

I don't see any northern states standing in line to ask for federal oversight of their voting procedures. If this was so great, I'm sure the DoJ would have a backlog of requests for this kind of oversight from all around the country.

Now, my question remains, "What is the continuing evidence of discrimination that makes this special oversight necessary for Southern states?" Except for a few Northern bigots spouting off, this hasn't been addressed.

The idea the the VRA harms no one is absolutely not true. The idea that it is a good law is equally wrong. There is a particular section that requires _any_ change in voting procedures to be precleared by federal authorities. This is a provision of law that is not applied uniformly across the fifty states. All or none are the only good choices when it comes time to renew this act, but our Congress is still pandering to Jesse Jackson.

I don't see any northern states standing in line to ask for federal oversight of their voting procedures. If this was so great, I'm sure the DoJ would have a backlog of requests for this kind of oversight from all around the country.

Now, my question remains, "What is the continuing evidence of discrimination that makes this special oversight necessary for Southern states?" Except for a few Northern bigots spouting off, this hasn't been addressed.

Northern States are included in this bill as well. Or did you handily ignore that part of the bill?

Northern States are included in this bill as well. Or did you handily ignore that part of the bill?

The oversight part is not the same. Read it again.

And it looks like a great Act...I can't see why you think you should oppose it, unless you somehow think that literacy=voting for who you support.

You forget the part where extra oversight and enforcement only applies to certain Southern states and not to anyone else.

So racism in the North, quietly done, is OK.

This law discriminates against the South and shoud either be repealed or amended to include the entire US.

The oversight part is not the same. Read it again.
any link to the bill so we can see what you're complaining about? 'Cause I can't see any in the thread.

Link, pretty please?

any link to the bill so we can see what you're complaining about? 'Cause I can't see any in the thread.

Link, pretty please?

Why don't you ask the OP, or Google it?

Why don't you ask the OP, or Google it?
'cause I can't be arsed?

I picked your post, but it makes you feel better:
This law discriminates against the South and shoud either be repealed or amended to include the entire US.
any link to the bill so we can see what you're complaining about? 'Cause I can't see any in the thread.

Link, pretty please?

You (general you, meaning those who complain of this bill) raised the issue. If you want people to help you fight this percieved injustice, you have to accomodate them, otherwise meh.

I think the link to Wikipedis about the bill is on the first page.

I think the link to Wikipedis about the bill is on the first page.
and I don't see your allegations in that link.

'cause I can't be arsed?


Here:

As enacted in 1965, the first element in the formula was whether, on November 1, 1964, the state or a political subdivision of the state maintained a "test or device" restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The Act's definition of a "test or device" included such requirements as the applicant being able to pass a literacy test, establish that he or she had good moral character, or have another registered voter vouch for his or her qualifications.

The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. This resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina) were covered. In fully covered states, the state itself and all political subdivisions of the state are subject to the special provisions. In "partially covered" states, the special provisions applied only to the identified counties. Voting changes adopted by or to be implemented in covered political subdivisions, including changes applicable to the state as a whole, are subject to review under Section 5. The Supreme Court has determined that "changes affecting voting" that are subject to review generally fall into four categories: (1) changes in the manner of voting; (2) changes in candidacy requirements and qualifications; (3) changes in the composition of the electorate that may vote for candidates for a given office; and (4) changes affecting the creation or abolition of an elective office. Presley v. Etowah, 502 U.S. 491 (1992).

In 1970, Congress recognized the continuing need for the special provisions of the Act, which were due to expire that year, and renewed them for another five years. It added a second prong to the coverage formula, identical to the original formula except that it referenced November 1968 as the relevant date for the maintenance of a test or device and the levels of voter registration and electoral participation. This addition to the formula resulted in the partial coverage of ten states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Wyoming. Half of these states (Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming) filed successful bailout lawsuits.

In 1975, the Act's special provisions were extended for another seven years, and were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of "language minority groups," which were defined as persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage." As before, Congress expanded the coverage formula, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972. In addition, the 1965 definition of "test or device" was expanded to include the practice of providing any election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age. This third prong of the coverage formula had the effect of covering Alaska, Arizona, and Texas in their entirety, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.

In 1982, the coverage formula was extended again, this time for 25 years, but no changes were made to it. Section 4, along with those other sections that are dependent upon it, such as Section 5, 6, and 8, will expire on August 6, 2007.

It OBVIOUSLY does not apply to the US. I'm sure there are conceivably other ways to screw people out of their votes that the Act can't even imagine or address - but the only oversight is on states that meet one of the formulas.

If you don't fit in the formula, you could have a state where 51% of the electorate actually get to vote, and the rest are screwed - but the Voting Rights Act says "everything is fine in your state! you aren't racists!"

The idea the the VRA harms no one is absolutely not true. The idea that it is a good law is equally wrong. There is a particular section that requires _any_ change in voting procedures to be precleared by federal authorities. This is a provision of law that is not applied uniformly across the fifty states. All or none are the only good choices when it comes time to renew this act, but our Congress is still pandering to Jesse Jackson.

I don't see any northern states standing in line to ask for federal oversight of their voting procedures. If this was so great, I'm sure the DoJ would have a backlog of requests for this kind of oversight from all around the country.

Now, my question remains, "What is the continuing evidence of discrimination that makes this special oversight necessary for Southern states?" Except for a few Northern bigots spouting off, this hasn't been addressed.

Oh teh noes!!! They want to keep voting fair! Oversight where oversight is needed, without wasting money on an unecessary extra program? Amazing! So are you for small government, or not?

You've got a history, and it's one you'll have to contend against. Especially considering what we saw in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, there is still racism at the polls

This law discriminates against the South and shoud either be repealed or amended to include the entire US.

Nowhere else except the south will you find blacks having their voting "priviledges" taken away because they cant read, even though they can. Maybe if your part of the country would stop discriminating, you wont be discriminated against for discriminating.

Nowhere else except the south will you find blacks having their voting "priviledges" taken away because they cant read, even though they can. Maybe if your part of the country would stop discriminating, you wont be discriminated against for discriminating.
Really? Do you have examples of current laws that would take away the voting privileges of blacks - in Southern states?

Link immediately.

"Yall mean we gotta let the niggers steell vote?"

Apparently, a close eye still needs to be kept on the "heritage of disloyalty and racism" CSA.

Really? Do you have examples of current laws that would take away the voting privileges of blacks - in Southern states?

Uh, no, and I never claimed I did. Back before the VRA blacks were not allowed to vote because they were deemed illiterate even though a) it doesnt matter and b) they werent.

Nowhere else except the south will you find blacks having their voting "priviledges" taken away because they cant read, even though they can. Maybe if your part of the country would stop discriminating, you wont be discriminated against for discriminating.

That was in the 1960s, it's forty years later now; you can tell by the way Northerners have become more civilized...oh wait.

Grafton County

:cool:

Just so all you mortally wounded southerners know, that's my county in NORTHERN new hampshire. I mean, damn, we're one county away from Canada here!

Here's a breakdown of our county:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafton_County

So it's not just about black people. It's about making sure that sketchy local governments can't stop people from voting by making IQ tests or something ridiculous.

I'm wicked curious to know why we go on there, though. I bet it's becauset the way New Hampshire works, the local governments probably declined to pay money for polling booths. :D

That was in the 1960s, it's forty years later now;

And letting the VRA die will set us back those 40 years.

you can tell by the way Northerners have become more civilized...oh wait.

I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

Uh, no, and I never claimed I did. Back before the VRA blacks were not allowed to vote because they were deemed illiterate even though a) it doesnt matter and b) they werent.

The opposition is not to the VRA itself. It's to that idiotic formula that basically places the onus of everything on less than half the US states. The others can screw people as long as they don't fit their screw inside the formula.

Maybe if you knew something about the South, you would realize there aren't any laws like that - not in 40 years. And the VRA needs to apply to every state - every state should have oversight, regardless of how well they did in the past.

But it doesn't apply to every state.

Here:



It OBVIOUSLY does not apply to the US. I'm sure there are conceivably other ways to screw people out of their votes that the Act can't even imagine or address - but the only oversight is on states that meet one of the formulas.

If you don't fit in the formula, you could have a state where 51% of the electorate actually get to vote, and the rest are screwed - but the Voting Rights Act says "everything is fine in your state! you aren't racists!"
So, a device is put in place to target the biggest problems. That device happens to target mostly southern states and this means it is racist? Please. The formula was not intended to target southern states, it just happened that the southern states were the worst offenders.

I mean, if you put the passing grade at 60% nationwide but Alabama has low test scores and fail more that New Hampshire, it doesn't mean that the 60% cut-off formula is racist to southern states.

The same hold true here. Otherwise, Virgina and some counties in new york would not be on that list.

EDIT: oh and thanks for the link.

And letting the VRA die will set us back those 40 years.

That would never happen; in the South today there is no general hatred towards blacks.

The opposition is not to the VRA itself. It's to that idiotic formula that basically places the onus of everything on less than half the US states. The others can screw people as long as they don't fit their screw inside the formula.

Except, for the most part, the south has been doing the screwing.

Maybe if you knew something about the South, you would realize there aren't any laws like that - not in 40 years. And the VRA needs to apply to every state - every state should have oversight, regardless of how well they did in the past.

What laws do you speak of? I dont understand what you are talking about.

But it doesn't apply to every state.

Yes, it only applies to the ones that want to let the VRA die so they can abuse minorities again.

Now, my question remains, "What is the continuing evidence of discrimination that makes this special oversight necessary for Southern states?" Except for a few Northern bigots spouting off, this hasn't been addressed.

You haven't looked very closely at the VRA, have you? It isn't "special oversight for Southern States." It is "special oversight for certain areas." Included in those "precleared" areas are some southern states, some states that are not southern, some counties, cities, and towns all over the country.


That was in the 1960s, it's forty years later now; you can tell by the way Northerners have become more civilized...oh wait.

The state of Georgia is currently trying another form of disenfranchizement. Do you really think our government doesn't need someone looking over their shoulder when they repeat these things again and again?

The state of Georgia is currently trying another form of disenfranchizement. Do you really think our government doesn't need someone looking over their shoulder when they repeat these things again and again?

It would never happen today; that's why the KKK is [almost] no more, why Bill Frist is the Senate Majority Leader and why we have not seceded again.

Yes, it only applies to the ones that want to let the VRA die so they can abuse minorities again.

The same people who oppose the formula would not mind it applying to the South if the same oversight applied everywhere. But it doesn't. And it won't.

That would never happen; in the South today there is no general hatred towards blacks.
what about the latinos?

Are you seriously telling me there is no chance that those part of the country would not jump at a chance to disemfrancise a voter block in order to win an election? Surely, you cannot be that naive about the politicians?

It would never happen today; that's why the KKK is [almost] no more,

Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The fact that they still exist is a blemish on the face of humanity.

why Bill Frist is the Senate Majority Leader

What??

and why we have not seceded again.

Please do.

The same people who oppose the formula would not mind it applying to the South if the same oversight applied everywhere. But it doesn't. And it won't.

Because everywhere else doesnt need to be forced to.

The same people who oppose the formula would not mind it applying to the South if the same oversight applied everywhere. But it doesn't. And it won't.

Why waste the money? Do you want small government or not? You need to be consistant!

Basically, if a state shows that it needs oversight, we can expand it. Until then, wasting the money needed to oversee states with no history of racist electioneering would be stupid.

what about the latinos?

Are you seriously telling me there is no chance that those part of the country would not jump at a chance to disemfrancise a voter block in order to win an election? Surely, you cannot be that naive about the politicians?

I live in TX, there is no racial majority here, I cannot see latinos being disenfranchised here or indeed in any other part of the great American South.

It would never happen today; that's why the KKK is [almost] no more, why Bill Frist is the Senate Majority Leader and why we have not seceded again.

Bill Frist is senate majority leader because your last senate majority leader - a southerner named Trent Lott - had to resign in disgrace because he was a racist.

Jesus Christ, talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

what about the latinos?

Are you seriously telling me there is no chance that those part of the country would not jump at a chance to disemfrancise a voter block in order to win an election? Surely, you cannot be that naive about the politicians?

Surely Northern states that had sudden influxes of Latinos (like Massachusetts) would never jump at a chance to disenfranchise a voter block in order to keep the legislature and most public offices full of non-Latinos?

Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The fact that they still exist is a blemish on the face of humanity.
What??
Please do.

I would happily remove the KKK; they sicken me.

Trent Lott said at J Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party that there would be a lot less problems today had the Dixiecrats won in 1948.

LONG LIVE DIXIE.

Trent Lott said at J Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party that there would be a lot less problems today had the Dixiecrats won in 1948.

And if you agree with this, you shouldnt say you are for the disbanding of the KKK.

I agree; there would be less problems. However that is not necessarily a good thing because a lot of people who have and deserve suffrage today would not have it. However I do believe that Lott was the victim of politically correct zealots and he was just trying to cheer up Thurmond on his 100th birthday.

I would happily remove the KKK; they sicken me.

Trent Lott said at J Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party that there would be a lot less problems today had the Dixiecrats won in 1948.

LONG LIVE DIXIE.


Long live dixie, where the niggers cant vote, white folks aint have to drink from the same fountains, niggers aint allowed in white schools, niggers ride at the back of the bus.

LONG LIVE DIXIE!

It would never happen today; that's why the KKK is [almost] no more, why Bill Frist is the Senate Majority Leader and why we have not seceded again.

It did happen today - and is happening today.

The Georgia Senate recently passed a law that will leave quite a few minorities unable to vote in the next election. Instead of at least holding off on the voter ID, they are pushing ahead with it, even knowing that most of those who will be affected (generally the poor, the ethnic minorities, or both) won't be able to get one before the election.

Surely Northern states that had sudden influxes of Latinos (like Massachusetts) would never jump at a chance to disenfranchise a voter block in order to keep the legislature and most public offices full of non-Latinos?
most assuredly they would. This is why we need some sort of law to make sure this would not happen.

Lo and behold! There is such a thing! And you are arguing that the law should be removed in this very thread on flimsy accusation that it is biased because it target most southern places than northern.

I agree; there would be less problems. However that is not necessarily a good thing because a lot of people who have and deserve suffrage today would not have it. However I do believe that Lott was the victim of politically correct zealots and he was just trying to cheer up Thurmond on his 100th birthday.

What the hell does PC even have to do with the subject? Trent Lott didn't say "Oh gee, I don't like them black people", he said that the world would be better if policies were established that opressed them. Is it PC to oppose that statement from a legislator? After all, he could make it law using the powers at his disposal.

I agree; there would be less problems. However that is not necessarily a good thing because a lot of people who have and deserve suffrage today would not have it. However I do believe that Lott was the victim of politically correct zealots and he was just trying to cheer up Thurmond on his 100th birthday.

There's nothing politically correct about saying that the nation would be better off if a party whose candidate's slogan was "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" had won. It's simply a matter of being either incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid, or racist. Either way, you're unfit for the Senate. While Trent Lott hasn't retired (he only removed himself as Senate Majority Leader), if he had any respect for the Senate he would.

It did happen today - and is happening today.

The Georgia Senate recently passed a law that will leave quite a few minorities unable to vote in the next election. Instead of at least holding off on the voter ID, they are pushing ahead with it, even knowing that most of those who will be affected (generally the poor, the ethnic minorities, or both) won't be able to get one before the election.

These people need a voter ID, should have a voter ID and now they have to have one. You're right that is discriminative.

What the hell does PC even have to do with the subject? Trent Lott didn't say "Oh gee, I don't like them black people", he said that the world would be better if policies were established that opressed them. Is it PC to oppose that statement from a legislator? After all, he could make it law using the powers at his disposal.

He never advocated racism.

He never advocated racism.
Rolling On Floor Laughing!

There's nothing politically correct about saying that the nation would be better off if a party whose candidate's slogan was "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" had won. It's simply a matter of being either incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid, or racist. Either way, you're unfit for the Senate. While Trent Lott hasn't retired (he only removed himself as Senate Majority Leader), if he had any respect for the Senate he would.

He never said the nation would be better off, he said there would be less problems and I think in this statement he's right.

These people need a voter ID, should have a voter ID and now they have to have one. You're right that is discriminative.

So making them get one with meager resources with only 3 months until an election is good policy? They could have waited for the NEXT election to impose this, so people could get the IDs. They did it this one to guarantee that minorities would be less able to vote.

He never advocated racism.

Bullcrap. He said that it would have been better if the Dixiecrats had won. That's saying that it would be better to have kept racism institutionalized.

Surely Northern states that had sudden influxes of Latinos (like Massachusetts) would never jump at a chance to disenfranchise a voter block in order to keep the legislature and most public offices full of non-Latinos?

There's really no need. Unlike African-Americans, Latinos are traditionally a highly-divided, low-turnout group. They don't organize across ethnic lines, as the Mexicans see themselves as different from the Puerto Ricans, who see themselves as different from the Cubans, who see themselves as different from the Salvadorans or Guatamalans. They also typically keep their head down and out of politics, and their potential voting power is undercut by the number of illegal immigrants. Massachussetts wouldn't need to cut out the voting bloc of Hispanics because by and large there is no voting bloc of Hispanics. The only real deviations from this rule are local constituencies of Cubans in New Jersey and Florida who, because of concentration, focus on anti-Castro sentiment, and location in crucial states become powerful.

Wait, are you saying that illiterate people shouldn't be allowed to vote? How is this anti-southern?

Bullcrap. He said that it would have been better if the Dixiecrats had won. That's saying that it would be better to have kept racism institutionalized.

No, he said that there would be less problems today and that statement alone is true.

Generally voter IDs work better during voting rather than afterwards.

Generally voter IDs work better during voting rather than afterwards.

Not when they make it impossible to get the IDs in time.

No, but Georgia hasn't.

No, he said that there would be less problems today and that statement alone is true.

Explain.

These people need a voter ID, should have a voter ID and now they have to have one. You're right that is discriminative.

Yes, even though the primaries are next week and, last time I checked, they hadn't even begun to issue them yet. Yes, there are no voter ID's available, but somehow it is the voter's fault that he/she cannot get one. Never mind that this person may have to miss work - something that could get them fired - just to get one anyways. Or maybe this person has no form of transportation outside of asking another to drive them, and thus can only get to the designated places to get one when it is convenient for another.

As long as the traditionally Democrat minorities can't vote, it's all fair.

If the Dixiecrats had entered office, the blacks would not have got the vote; this was the trigger point for everything becoming more socially liberal.

So, blacks getting vote = GOOD.

Society moving to the left = BAD.

Yes, even though the primaries are next week and, last time I checked, they hadn't even begun to issue them yet. Yes, there are no voter ID's available, but somehow it is the voter's fault that he/she cannot get one. Never mind that this person may have to miss work - something that could get them fired - just to get one anyways. Or maybe this person has no form of transportation outside of asking another to drive them, and thus can only get to the designated places to get one when it is convenient for another.

As long as the traditionally Democrat minorities can't vote, it's all fair.

I cannot believe that people who want to vote cannot get themselves a voter ID.

I cannot believe that people who want to vote cannot get themselves a voter ID.

In 3 months, dealing with an overloaded beurocracy, where (let's be honest), those who have the money to give the right people a bribe are more likely to get processed first? Dream on.

Yes, even though the primaries are next week and, last time I checked, they hadn't even begun to issue them yet. Yes, there are no voter ID's available, but somehow it is the voter's fault that he/she cannot get one. Never mind that this person may have to miss work - something that could get them fired - just to get one anyways. Or maybe this person has no form of transportation outside of asking another to drive them, and thus can only get to the designated places to get one when it is convenient for another.

As long as the traditionally Democrat minorities can't vote, it's all fair.
Check again. There's at least two state courts, not the federal DoJ, that have issued stays on that law. Bad for us, but that's partly my point. We don't need federal oversight to screw up voting policy. Incidentally, the DoJ did approve the ID cards.

When you refer to traditional Democratic minorities, are you referring to the dead, the unregistered, or the criminal minorities?

I cannot believe that people who want to vote cannot get themselves a voter ID.

Truthiness aside, your beliefs have no bearing whether his statement is accurate or not. For the record, it is.

If the Dixiecrats had entered office, the blacks would not have got the vote; this was the trigger point for everything becoming more socially liberal.

So, blacks getting vote = GOOD.

Society moving to the left = BAD.

That is the biggest pile of horsehockey I've ever read. Trigger point for Liberalism my arse. So you'd support Blacks not getting the vote then, by saying a Dixiecrat government would have come into power?

In 3 months, dealing with an overloaded beurocracy, where (let's be honest), those who have the money to give the right people a bribe are more likely to get processed first? Dream on.

Government corruption does not exist like that; this is the US not Kenya.

Check again. There's at least two state courts, not the federal DoJ, that have issued stays on that law. Bad for us, but that's partly my point. We don't need federal oversight to screw up voting policy. Incidentally, the DoJ did approve the ID cards.

When you refer to traditional Democratic minorities, are you referring to the dead, the unregistered, or the criminal minorities?

The only demographic not to have had a majority for Reagan in '84 was the unemployed.

The Voting Rights Act has been used as a cover (at least in my area) for allowing voters to cast ballots in the names of dead people, to cast multiple ballots, and to lie about their identity. Apparently a valid government-issued ID (which is now being offered for FREE at easily accessible locations) is the same as a poll tax to some people. I call STUPID on this one.

Virtually everyone around here over the age of 14 has a state-issued or military ID, so I don't see the problem.

That is the biggest pile of horsehockey I've ever read. Trigger point for Liberalism my arse. So you'd support Blacks not getting the vote then, by saying a Dixiecrat government would have come into power?

No I support the blacks getting the vote, be we needed a real conservative in office to prevent the travesty that followed.

Government corruption does not exist like that; this is the US not Kenya.


Bullshit? You know how to get a building permit passed through a city planning dept. fastest? Bribes. That's the way the world works. Money.

No I support the blacks getting the vote, be we needed a real conservative in office to prevent the travesty that followed.

Like what, exactly? Come on, please tell me about these 'Travesties' that have occured in the past fourty years. I can't wait to hear about them.

When you refer to traditional Democratic minorities, are you referring to the dead, the unregistered, or the criminal minorities?

So 83 percent of likely black voters are criminals or dead? Along with 63 percent of Latino voters? Sounds like wishful thinking on your part, homes.

Blacks haven't voted in mass for the Republicans since before the dixiecrats.

Roe vs. Wade,

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton,

Watergate

The Death Penalty being declared unsconstitutional,

Gay Marriage,

Atheism in our public schools and places of higher education,

The removal of Christian objects from public land; especially the Ten Commandments and the Declaration of Indepedence from the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Liberalization of the media.

Society's lack of morals; especially the acceptance of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' and the great rise in out of wedlock births and pre-marital sex.

JUST TO NAME A FEW.

Roe vs. Wade,

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton,

Watergate

The Death Penalty being declared unsconstitutional,

Gay Marriage,

Atheism in our public schools and places of higher education,

The removal of Christian objects from public land; especially the Ten Commandments and the Declaration of Indepedence from the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Liberalization of the media.

Society's lack of morals; especially the acceptance of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' and the great rise in out of wedlock births and pre-marital sex.

JUST TO NAME A FEW.

Y'see, I thought you'd come out with these, but I was hoping otherwise. Ah well. Just to tell you, that none of these really are bad things. They've led to the progression of society and the slackening of morals, which can only be a good thing. Aboloshing these things would keep us in a Conservative, theocratic state which would never go anywhere.

These are all terrible things that have happened and America is poorer for it.

Roe vs. Wade,

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton,

Watergate

The Death Penalty being declared unsconstitutional,

Gay Marriage,

Atheism in our public schools and places of higher education,

The removal of Christian objects from public land; especially the Ten Commandments and the Declaration of Indepedence from the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Liberalization of the media.

Society's lack of morals; especially the acceptance of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' and the great rise in out of wedlock births and pre-marital sex.

JUST TO NAME A FEW.

I thought you were going to list bad things not good

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton,


Two southern democrats. Oh no! Contrast with the 5 republican presidents we had in the last 35 years.


Watergate

What does this have to do with liberalism?


The Death Penalty being declared unsconstitutional,

Is it still unconstitutional?


Gay Marriage,

Interesting. I think it takes place in one state at the moment. Hardly a liberal revolution.


Atheism in our public schools and places of higher education,


I believe the word your'e looking for is 'secularism'. Secularism.


The removal of Christian objects from public land; especially the Ten Commandments and the Declaration of Indepedence from the Alabama Supreme Court.

Again, secularism.


The Liberalization of the media.


I don't buy it.


Society's lack of morals; especially the acceptance of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' and the great rise in out of wedlock births and pre-marital sex.

People just want to be free and exercise free will. You don't want to let them?

Morality should NEVER be legislated, except where it relates to preventing people from tangible physical or monetary harm. The government doesn't need to be god's hand on earth. He is more than capable of punishing sinners himself. I have faith enough to believe that.

Roe vs. Wade,

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton,

Watergate

The Death Penalty being declared unsconstitutional,

Gay Marriage,

Atheism in our public schools and places of higher education,

The removal of Christian objects from public land; especially the Ten Commandments and the Declaration of Indepedence from the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Liberalization of the media.

Society's lack of morals; especially the acceptance of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' and the great rise in out of wedlock births and pre-marital sex.

JUST TO NAME A FEW.



Thank god almighty for all of these things.

Satan is responsible for these things.

Satan is responsible for these things.
If he existed probably not ... why would he be working on the side of good?

He never advocated racism.


No, he just said "man things would be better if them all niggers couldnt vote, us white folks didnt have to drink from the ****** fountains, ride on the ****** buses or send our kids to filthy sitinking ****** schools"

That was the platform lott said would "have prevented all these problems."

I find it interesting that a government that seems intent on 'exporting democracy' at all costs requires such a mechanism to ensure voting occurs in the proper spirit.

Satan is responsible for these things.


Satan is more likely responisble for the disloyal and racist heritage of the south.

Two southern democrats. Oh no! Contrast with the 5 republican presidents we had in the last 35 years.

Carter was a useless President, while Clinton was useless and immoral.


What does this have to do with liberalism?

Nixon was a progressive Republican; transaltion = liberal at heart.


Is it still unconstitutional?


Luckily, no.

Interesting. I think it takes place in one state at the moment. Hardly a liberal revolution.

Satan is waiting for the opportune moment.


I believe the word you're looking for is 'secularism'. Secularism.

Same thing, God needs to be with this nation's children.


Again, secularism.

The goverment should be allowed to display historical documents.


I don't buy it.

CNN.


People just want to be free and exercise free will. You don't want to let them?

Morality should NEVER be legislated, except where it relates to preventing people from tangible physical or monetary harm. The government doesn't need to be God's hand on earth. He is more than capable of punishing sinners himself. I have faith enough to believe that.

This goverment needs to outlaw: pre-marital sex, abortion, homosexuality amongst other things.

I find it interesting that a government that seems intent on 'exporting democracy' at all costs requires such a mechanism to ensure voting occurs in the proper spirit.

Keep in mind that we have a population almost half the size of Europe's here, spread out over an almost equally large landmass. There are bound to be some parts of the country where shady stuff goes on....

Including my county, apparently :D

Satan is responsible for these things.

He is? Well then God Bless Satan indeed.

Carter was a useless President, while Clinton was useless and immoral.


This goverment needs to outlaw: pre-marital sex, abortion, homosexuality amongst other things.

God Bless William Jefferson Clinton - the model modern president.

How about we do what Lott / his amigo viejo proposed and outlaw niggers from going to white schools and outlaw niggers from using white drinking fountains?

God Bless William Jefferson Clinton - the model modern president.

How about we do what Lott / his amigo viejo proposed and outlaw niggers from going to white schools and outlaw niggers from using white drinking fountains?

Bill Clinton should have been impeached; he is a disgrace as is his awful socialist wife.

Lott never advocated racial segregation.

Bill Clinton should have been impeached; he is a disgrace as is his awful socialist wife.

Lott never advocated racial segregation.
Lol at least he was a decent presedent unlike the president that followed him

Bill Clinton should have been impeached; he is a disgrace as is his awful socialist wife.

Lott never advocated racial segregation.


Lott was clear in that he wanted the niggers to be removed from white buses (or made to ride in the back) the niggers to be removed from white schools, the niggers not to be permitted to use the drinking fountains reserved for whites.

This is only what he SAID he supported, we can only guess at the true depths of his Heritage of Hate.

This goverment needs to outlaw: pre-marital sex, abortion, homosexuality amongst other things.

My man, I apologize for starting anything. I should have looked at your country before I replied to you. You run a moralistic democracy, and I run a civil righits lovefest. There's no way in heck we're going to agree on anything policy related beyond "democracy is good".

Keep in mind that we have a population almost half the size of Europe's here, spread out over an almost equally large landmass. There are bound to be some parts of the country where shady stuff goes on....

Including my county, apparently :D

You raise a good point. It started me thinking on whether or not other countries have similar system. After all, the USA has no monopoly on racism or political corruption. I can see how it would be useful in Canada, to help deal with possible disenfranchisement of Native voters. Perhaps Sinuhue will rejoin the discussion.
After reading the wiki article on it, it seems like an intelligent piece of legislation, and it seems fairly easy to 'bail out' right now.

Satan is responsible for these things.

Oh. I see. You appear to have left rational discourse behind.

I cannot believe that people who want to vote cannot get themselves a voter ID.

You may not believe it, but there are people who don't have the conveniences you do. Of course, you most likely have a driver's license and don't have to worry about it anyways.


Check again. There's at least two state courts, not the federal DoJ, that have issued stays on that law.

The stays on the law, at this point, only apply to the people who brought the suit. In other words, there are about 10 people who it doesn't apply to, but the law is going through for the rest of the voters.

Bad for us, but that's partly my point.

Bad for who?

When you refer to traditional Democratic minorities, are you referring to the dead, the unregistered, or the criminal minorities?

I'm referring to ethnic minorities, who traditionally vote Democratic. Good job showing off your bigotry though.

Roe vs. Wade,

Human beings own their bodies. What's the problem here?

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton,

Are you claiming that Carter has not done a great deal of good?

The Death Penalty being declared unsconstitutional,

Since when?

Gay Marriage,

Oh noes! Gays might be treated as equal citizens!

Atheism in our public schools and places of higher education,

Atheism is anywhere that there are atheists. Are you claiming that atheism is being taught somehow in public schools or higher education? You would be wrong.

The removal of Christian objects from public land; especially the Ten Commandments and the Declaration of Indepedence from the Alabama Supreme Court.

LOL. A judge who is supposed to be impartial, regardless of religion, sneaks a huge monument that has not been approved by the state onto state property in the dead of night. And it's a "travesty" when it is lawfully removed?

The Liberalization of the media.

A myth.

Society's lack of morals; especially the acceptance of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' and the great rise in out of wedlock births and pre-marital sex.

There has been no rise in pre-marital sex, only the percentage of people who talk about it. And no one accepts homosexuality as an "alternate lifestyle," as homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It is a sexual orientation, and homosexuals are capable of all the choices in "lifestyle" as heterosexuals.

JUST TO NAME A FEW.

You didn't name much. Watergate was pretty corrupt, I'll give you that. Of course, you also named a human rights supporter who has done good all over the world as a "travesty". Apparently, "anything remotely associated with Democrats" is a "travesty".

I find it interesting that a government that seems intent on 'exporting democracy' at all costs requires such a mechanism to ensure voting occurs in the proper spirit.

That's the U.S.A.: exporting freedom, whether we have it or not, whether you want it or not.

Despite one hundred and forty years of progress in the reduction and elimination of racist practices, the Congress of the United States decided to punish Southern states for another 25. The South has been subject to federal oversight ever since the Civil War, with more recently enacted oversight in the form of the Voting Rights Act. Congress has once again, shown it's predjudice against Southern states by renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act without any amendments, for another 25 years.

Clearly, the country cannot make progress in accomplishing racial equality until a couple things happen. The first is that all states are treated equally. The second is that the professional victims of racism have got to retire. Mainly, I'm talking about the brave men and women that did bring about huge change during the sixties. Unfortunately, they cannot bring themselves to see the world in any other light but the one that lit it during those terrible days. I don't think they would recognize progress if an Alabama trooper beat them with it.

I don't care much about what our European and Canadian friends think, but I'd love to hear from some of you Southerners about the VRA extension. Nazz are you awake this morning?

I'm open to the possiblity that you might be sarcastic since no thinking human being could genuinly believe that, but either playing along, or assuming you're not:

Would you mind telling us a bit about yourself? I'm genuinly curious, because ever since it was up for renewal I've spent a lot of time wondering what kind of psychotic asshole could oppose the renewal of the Voting Rights Act.

The "professional victims of racism" will find themselves without a job once the progenitors thereof are taken from influence as well as office. It is plain for all to see that racism remains alive and well in US politics, since "states rights" is only important when it comes to the rights of the states to trample on the rights of unpopular minorities, but states have no rights recognized by republicans when it comes to hearing medical court cases, allowing medical marijuana, or regulating the passage of hazardous materials through their cities. But if a state wants to pass Jim Crow laws (a la the Florida voter purges or Georgia's voter-ID poll tax) well, "it may be wrong, but states have a right to make these decisions for themselves." :upyours:

The Voting Rights Act still has a place in American Politics. We need it, because there is so much being done to restrict voters rights. We cannot give an inch.

Government corruption does not exist like that; this is the US not Kenya.
And don't pay any attention to those kids who tell you that Mommy and Daddy put those presents under the tree.

I've seen some pretty darn good arguments in favor of continuing to punish the South for the Civil War. The best one is from Ms Demipublicents, when she argued that ID cards were an illegal practice. Turns out that we Southerners can police ourselves because there are two stays (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0713metvoterid.html)of that law. Therefore, no voter will be required to identify themselves in a verifiable manner, come election day.

The second argument that caught my attention was the typical liberal "But it's good" argument. The second part of that argument was "Because Southerners are bigots." That doesn't really do much for me, but I guess that's what passes for critical thinking among liberals now.

The conclusion that I'm going to reach is that there are no valid arguments for the extension of the VRA and its selective application in areas of the South. But I've already told that to the people who matter -- my Congressman and my Senators.

Well, great, more reasons not to ever go north of the Mason-Dixie line.
That's it, I declare Civil War!

Well, great, more reasons not to ever go north of the Mason-Dixie line.
That's it, I declare Civil War!
You know, if I didn't have customers in Boston and the surrounding area, I'd never spend my money in a Yankee state.

I've seen some pretty darn good arguments in favor of continuing to punish the South for the Civil War. The best one is from Ms Demipublicents, when she argued that ID cards were an illegal practice. Turns out that we Southerners can police ourselves because there are two stays (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0713metvoterid.html)of that law. Therefore, no voter will be required to identify themselves in a verifiable manner, come election day.

The second argument that caught my attention was the typical liberal "But it's good" argument. The second part of that argument was "Because Southerners are bigots." That doesn't really do much for me, but I guess that's what passes for critical thinking among liberals now.

The conclusion that I'm going to reach is that there are no valid arguments for the extension of the VRA and its selective application in areas of the South. But I've already told that to the people who matter -- my Congressman and my Senators.
suit yourself. Some people prefer to see the law as it is written and some people like to see bias where none exists. Continue to feel like a victim, maybe someday you'll be right.

I like how the southerners are making themselves out to be bigger victims than the victims of racism because of a law that says "stop being racist".

Despite one hundred and forty years of progress in the reduction and elimination of racist practices, the Congress of the United States decided to punish Southern states for another 25. The South has been subject to federal oversight ever since the Civil War, with more recently enacted oversight in the form of the Voting Rights Act. Congress has once again, shown it's predjudice against Southern states by renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act without any amendments, for another 25 years.

The only thing wrong with Voter's Rights legislation is that we don't have enough and it's not applied as often as it should be.


Clearly, the country cannot make progress in accomplishing racial equality until a couple things happen. The first is that all states are treated equally.

Fine. Then how about all states get tax dollars equally? I'm sick of financing the failed Southern states. Teach your kids to read, quit telling them to pump out babies they can't support, and pay for your own goddam roads. We do it up here, and we do it all while getting less than 70 cents on the dollar back for our federal tax money.


The second is that the professional victims of racism have got to retire. Mainly, I'm talking about the brave men and women that did bring about huge change during the sixties. Unfortunately, they cannot bring themselves to see the world in any other light but the one that lit it during those terrible days. I don't think they would recognize progress if an Alabama trooper beat them with it.

Yeah, yeah, racism is dead. Just like sexism and homophobia. It never ceases to entertain me how white heterosexual males love to explain how minorities don't face real bigotry any more.

The only thing wrong with Voter's Rights legislation is that we don't have enough and it's not applied as often as it should be.


Fine. Then how about all states get tax dollars equally? I'm sick of financing the failed Southern states. Teach your kids to read, quit telling them to pump out babies they can't support, and pay for your own goddam roads. We do it up here, and we do it all while getting less than 70 cents on the dollar back for our federal tax money.


Yeah, yeah, racism is dead. Just like sexism and homophobia. It never ceases to entertain me how white heterosexual males love to explain how minorities don't face real bigotry any more.
Ouch ... good one lol

Like it or not, some states have a much worse record with regards to equality in civil rights. As such, it is only logical to give certain states "special attention" in the VRA. Nevertheless, I think it would be reasonable, after 40 years, to reconsider which states need this kind of "special attention." This reconsideration works both ways. If the Commonwealth of Virginia has shown vast improvement in racial equality, they should be removed from the preclearance list. Other states, however, should be added to the list, New Mexico for example. If you think that, without special oversight, New Mexico would fully and willingly adhere to the bilingual ballot clause of the VRA, you're either being sarcastic or you're in serious denial.

You know, if I didn't have customers in Boston and the surrounding area, I'd never spend my money in a Yankee state.
Lol I am fairly sure we are fine with that ... I know we would love to stop carying your asses tax wise too. I am sure we would be geting the better part of the deal if money did not cross from north to south

Lol I am fairly sure we are fine with that ... I know we would love to stop carying your asses tax wise too. I am sure we would be geting the better part of the deal if money did not cross from north to south

Actually, if we really divided it properly, there would be a few urban "blue" islands where you couldn't grow anything and where most of the crime, poverty, and badly run schools exist.

We would sit out in the suburbs and rural areas, and laugh at you.

We have a situation like that here in Washington D.C. People who live in the suburbs enjoy a far better lifestyle than the typical resident of D.C., who, despite laws to the contrary, enjoys a day filled with murder, rape, robbery, crack use, and where the number of people who are incarcerated and convicted of felonies per year is about the same as the number of people they graduate from high school each year.

Recently, here in the suburbs, we had our FIRST police ever killed on duty (i.e., by overt criminal act, and not an accident). Shocking stuff.

Actually, if we really divided it properly, there would be a few urban "blue" islands where you couldn't grow anything and where most of the crime, poverty, and badly run schools exist.

We would sit out in the suburbs and rural areas, and laugh at you.

We have a situation like that here in Washington D.C. People who live in the suburbs enjoy a far better lifestyle than the typical resident of D.C., who, despite laws to the contrary, enjoys a day filled with murder, rape, robbery, crack use, and where the number of people who are incarcerated and convicted of felonies per year is about the same as the number of people they graduate from high school each year.

Recently, here in the suburbs, we had our FIRST police ever killed on duty (i.e., by overt criminal act, and not an accident). Shocking stuff.


Dont know my area is fairly "Blue" and I got to drive out on a dirt road through our fields every day to get home

Edit and somehow I doubt that is a "typical" resident

Lol I am fairly sure we are fine with that ... I know we would love to stop carying your asses tax wise too. I am sure we would be geting the better part of the deal if money did not cross from north to south
Or the less worse part of the deal anyway. It would suck a whole lot to have commercial isolationism among the various regions of the country.

Anyway, it is completely unfair that the rest of the country has to pick up the bill for high federal spending in Red States just so senators and congresspeople from those states can claim to "bring home the bacon for our local communities." Indoor rain forest... {gets angry} :mad:

To The OP:

Quit Whining. It will always pass so don't worry about it.

Besides, if the VRA was shot down, the Dems would lose the continual "But we gave you your rights, you should always vote for us!" advantage.

Dont know my area is fairly "Blue" and I got to drive out on a dirt road through our fields every day to get home

Then again, there's no explaining why Rush Limbaugh is now the number one talk radio show in New York City.

Then again, there's no explaining why Rush Limbaugh is now the number one talk radio show in New York City.
Like watching a car wreck cant look away

Or the less worse part of the deal anyway. It would suck a whole lot to have commercial isolationism among the various regions of the country.

Anyway, it is completely unfair that the rest of the country has to pick up the bill for high federal spending in Red States just so senators and congresspeople from those states can claim to "bring home the bacon for our local communities." Indoor rain forest... {gets angry} :mad:
True that

Dont know my area is fairly "Blue" and I got to drive out on a dirt road through our fields every day to get home

Edit and somehow I doubt that is a "typical" resident
Ditto. I work on a farm every day and I live in a "blue" area.

Ditto. I work on a farm every day and I live in a "blue" area.
Yeah we only have 400 acers but at least we could feed my family :)

Yeah we only have 400 acers but at least we could feed my family :)
If we took the blue areas and tried to grow food, you might have food, but not everyone in the city.

If we took the blue areas and tried to grow food, you might have food, but not everyone in the city.
If you took the red areas and tried to grow food you'd have a third world civilization again.

Without the cities there would be no demand for your crops. No demand for your surplus grain. No factories to make your machinery, no refineries to provide gas, no hospitals and no research infrastructure. Your GM grain would die, your machines would break, and you'd be back to the good old sickle and scythe. You know how hard it is to scythe down an acre of hay?

Surely Northern states that had sudden influxes of Latinos (like Massachusetts) would never jump at a chance to disenfranchise a voter block in order to keep the legislature and most public offices full of non-Latinos?

Are you somehow suggesting that politicians from Massachusetts might be corrupt? Heavens no!

Haha, that comment is hilarious. We invented gerrymandering.

Actually, if we really divided it properly, there would be a few urban "blue" islands where you couldn't grow anything and where most of the crime, poverty, and badly run schools exist.

We would sit out in the suburbs and rural areas, and laugh at you.

I'm sure you're aware that "red" areas have the highest rates of poverty, homicide, divorce, and teen pregnancy.


We have a situation like that here in Washington D.C. People who live in the suburbs enjoy a far better lifestyle than the typical resident of D.C., who, despite laws to the contrary, enjoys a day filled with murder, rape, robbery, crack use, and where the number of people who are incarcerated and convicted of felonies per year is about the same as the number of people they graduate from high school each year.

Really? Because, as somebody who has lived in DC for several years now, I've yet to personally witness a single crime.

But hey, if you want to sit around laughing at the nation's capital, that's your business. Just kindly don't pretend that "true American values" are found in the sticks, hmmm? That's one line I get really sick of hearing. "Oh, the icky intellectuals in the cities are ruining America! We proud rural types are models of Real American Values(tm)! If only we could save our country from the evil, evil technology and culture of urban centers!"

Then again, there's no explaining why Rush Limbaugh is now the number one talk radio show in New York City.

New Yorkers like being a little angry all the time. It keeps everyone moving, because when people start standing around getting in the way, New Yorkers get a lot angry.

On that note. Rush Limbaugh briefly fixed my broken car radio. It was doing this thing where the channel would randomly just start to go through the scan sequence and only once or twice stop on a random station for a few seconds, and then go back to racing through the fresquencies again. Even if I turned it off, it would randomly turn on and start doing the same thing all over again. It wouldn't even respond to volume and preset station buttons.

Then, one day, it randomly stopped on the begining of Rush Limbaugh's show. It froze. Transfixed like a deer in the headlights, my poor little crippled radio couldn't pull itself away from the oncoming horror that was Rush Limbaugh. Leaping to my radio's rescue I hit the preset button and it went to Air America, where my radio greatfully rested. But sadly, I forgot that Al Franken has a segment where he'll play a Rush Limbaugh clip. My traumatized radio went back into a tailspin of frequency skipping until it again came upon Rush Limbaugh's program. I brought it back to Air America, and reassured it that everything would be OK, that Rush Limbaugh on Al Franken's show was just a joke. From then on it worked almost like new until just last week, when I found someone to buy the car from me.

True story. I may be reading a bit much into my radio's fragile emotional state, but the channel changing and the stopping at Rush Limbaugh are true, as is it's sudden relapse after I decided to sell it.

I lived in the deep south close to 30 years. I just recently moved to SoCal, nonetheless my experiences of living in Dekalb and Fulton County, Georgia and Florida allow me some sense of perspective on the VRA. I can say honestly, without reservation that most of Georgia and a great deal of Florida continues to need the monitoring process of the VRA. I do not say this casually. I worked for the Supervisors of Election for Fulton and Dekalb counties in Georgia and the Orange and Pinellas County Supervisors of Election offices in Florida.

Most of the disenfranchisement I saw has been subtle, but it all hinged on requiring government issued ID to vote. This did not affect the vast majority of voters, only the very poor and elderly who either no longer have a DL and not bother to get a State issued ID card or simply slip through the institutional cracks of the government systems in place. In Pinellas County, I was a Voting District supervisor (I oversaw the functioning of 10-12 precincts). The new technology of the electronic voting machines very clearly confused elderly and low education voters, and we had to spend a great deal of time and effort educating those particular voters on how to use the machines properly on site. I did not begrudge this one bit.

Until a better solution presents itself, I am very much in favor of keeping the VRA in place and I am pleased that it was extended. Most of the arguments about dropping the VRA oversight requirements are rubbish and are designed to allow those "victimized" states to do as they please.

A final note: I have also lived in the rural south, and not many attitudes have changed over the years. Prejudice is passed on from parent to child, and that is why it is so insidious. There are quite a number of little 'burgs in the south that haven't changed much at all in 46 years.

Despite one hundred and forty years of progress in the reduction and elimination of racist practices, the Congress of the United States decided to punish Southern states for another 25. The South has been subject to federal oversight ever since the Civil War, with more recently enacted oversight in the form of the Voting Rights Act. Congress has once again, shown it's predjudice against Southern states by renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act without any amendments, for another 25 years.

Clearly, the country cannot make progress in accomplishing racial equality until a couple things happen. The first is that all states are treated equally. The second is that the professional victims of racism have got to retire. Mainly, I'm talking about the brave men and women that did bring about huge change during the sixties. Unfortunately, they cannot bring themselves to see the world in any other light but the one that lit it during those terrible days. I don't think they would recognize progress if an Alabama trooper beat them with it.

I don't care much about what our European and Canadian friends think, but I'd love to hear from some of you Southerners about the VRA extension. Nazz are you awake this morning?


Hmm, I do seem to remember allegations of certain persons being turned away from Floridian elections back in 2000... must be my faulty memory.

So yeah, let's bring back literacy tests and grandfather clauses to southern states like New York and California...

Hmm, I do seem to remember allegations of certain persons being turned away from Floridian elections back in 2000... must be my faulty memory.

So yeah, let's bring back literacy tests and grandfather clauses to southern states like New York and California...
We have all heard similar allegations. In fact, the Congress send a commission to Florida to hold hearings into that very matter. Maybe you can do something they couldn't -- find and name a disenfranchised voter. That's right. There was not a single person that could build a credible complaint over their inability to vote.

This goverment needs to outlaw: pre-marital sex, abortion, homosexuality amongst other things.

I hear round, fist-sized stones are the best.
Or perhaps we could have public floggings.
Maybe we could bring back the stocks and pillory.

Despite one hundred and forty years of progress in the reduction and elimination of racist practices, the Congress of the United States decided to punish Southern states for another 25. The South has been subject to federal oversight ever since the Civil War, with more recently enacted oversight in the form of the Voting Rights Act. Congress has once again, shown it's predjudice against Southern states by renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act without any amendments, for another 25 years.

It should suspecious of the South. Look at all the Republicans it sends. It makes our country so stupid and makes Europe hate us so much. The South is racist, sexist, and has a ton of fundies, including Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church.

We need to be more advanced like Europe. Look, compared to the US, a European citizen is guaranteed so many rights. :(

If you want more rights... vote for Sherrod Brown in Ohio! It won't happen overnight, but I know that the more Democrats, the more rights we get!

My objection to the VRA passing as-is only concerns the portion that requires certain areas, identified 40 years ago, to get special pre-clearance before any changes in voting procedures. For example, can you really say that Bronx, NY, is a haven of voting discrimination against minorities?

Helpful link regarding VRA - please read before responding:
http://www.votinglaw.com/dojfaq.html#2

Can anyone reasonably say that these areas have had no changes in the general population's attitudes towards minorities, much less major demographic changes, in 40 years?

What would be reasonable is a statistical study. If such a study showed that the same abuses occurred in the same areas, I'd be all for it. I somehow doubt that it would, though.

I, like Keruvalia, live in Houston, TX. There is no majority race here - divided, more or less equally, between Hispanics, blacks, whites, with a smaller amount of Asians.

I have encountered just about zero racists here. While I don't doubt it exists, it is certainly not prevalent - our previous mayor was black, our city council is made up of blacks, Hispanics, whites, and Asians.

The same diversity can be seen in other Texas cities - Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, to name a few. There is no reason that extra requirements should be put on my state for changes in voting procedures, unless they applied to every other place in the country.

Note that I only object to the pre-clearance portion - Section 5 - of the act, not the act itself, and that is the crux of most of the Southern Congress's objections to it.

And yes, I know it wasn't just Southern states on the list, but they by far make up the bulk of the list, and deservedly so at the time the act was passed.

We fought and lost, and look what we got.....

:mad:

Despite one hundred and forty years of progress in the reduction and elimination of racist practices, the Congress of the United States decided to punish Southern states for another 25. The South has been subject to federal oversight ever since the Civil War, with more recently enacted oversight in the form of the Voting Rights Act. Congress has once again, shown it's predjudice against Southern states by renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act without any amendments, for another 25 years.

I'd love to hear from some of you Southerners about the VRA extension. Nazz are you awake this morning?
I was born in Tennessee, and have lived in North Carolina for about 20 years now. I would love to say that prejudice and racial discrimination in the South are a thing of the past. But I can't. There are still those, particularly in many of the smaller towns, who would reinstitute racism in some of its most disgusting forms. The Congress acted correctly.

I was born in Tennessee, and have lived in North Carolina for about 20 years now. I would love to say that prejudice and racial discrimination in the South are a thing of the past. But I can't. There are still those, particularly in many of the smaller towns, who would reinstitute racism in some of its most disgusting forms. The Congress acted correctly.
Hopefully we continue to make progress, we just cant give up on it.

Hopefully we continue to make progress, we just cant give up on it.
Yes. And we have. But we have a long way to go.

Yes. And we have. But we have a long way to go.

Only two generations have passed since the end of institutionalized segregation; if we look at how long it has taken for anti-Semitism to die out among the general population in the US and Europe, we might get an idea of how long it will take for racism to decline. The same is true of gay rights, whose struggle is still in its infancy having only truly gained ground from the 1970's onward.

Keep the provisions in place, because we do have a lot of work left to override decades of institutionalized racism both in the South and the greater US. Each passing year gets us a little farther along, but there's still plenty of entrenched racism left.

Despite one hundred and forty years of progress in the reduction and elimination of racist practices, the Congress of the United States decided to punish Southern states for another 25. The South has been subject to federal oversight ever since the Civil War, with more recently enacted oversight in the form of the Voting Rights Act. Congress has once again, shown it's predjudice against Southern states by renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act without any amendments, for another 25 years.

Clearly, the country cannot make progress in accomplishing racial equality until a couple things happen. The first is that all states are treated equally. The second is that the professional victims of racism have got to retire. Mainly, I'm talking about the brave men and women that did bring about huge change during the sixties. Unfortunately, they cannot bring themselves to see the world in any other light but the one that lit it during those terrible days. I don't think they would recognize progress if an Alabama trooper beat them with it.

I don't care much about what our European and Canadian friends think, but I'd love to hear from some of you Southerners about the VRA extension. Nazz are you awake this morning?
So since we're maintaining people's voting rights, we're biased against the South? That assumes that voting rights for blacks are somehow in opposition to the values of the South. You've hidden a racist premise in your argument, my friend.

It should suspecious of the South. Look at all the Republicans it sends. It makes our country so stupid and makes Europe hate us so much. The South is racist, sexist, and has a ton of fundies, including Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church.
I think they're from Kansas... or somewhere thereabouts. But they're definitely in the Midwest.

Only two generations have passed since the end of institutionalized segregation; if we look at how long it has taken for anti-Semitism to die out among the general population in the US and Europe, we might get an idea of how long it will take for racism to decline. The same is true of gay rights, whose struggle is still in its infancy having only truly gained ground from the 1970's onward.

Keep the provisions in place, because we do have a lot of work left to override decades of institutionalized racism both in the South and the greater US. Each passing year gets us a little farther along, but there's still plenty of entrenched racism left.
This is one of the things that still, even after all these years, mystifies me. Why in God's name can't everyone just wake up and recognize that we're all just trying to do the best we can with the cards we've been dealt? Jeeze. :(

This is one of the things that still, even after all these years, mystifies me. Why in God's name can't everyone just wake up and recognize that we're all just trying to do the best we can with the cards we've been dealt? Jeeze. :(
Psh. We all know that the amount of melanin present in one's skin determines superiority. :rolleyes:

I think they're from Kansas... or somewhere thereabouts. But they're definitely in the Midwest.
"Conscience and Truth." Ha! If ever there were a minsnomer! :rolleyes:

Psh. We all know that the amount of melanin present in one's skin determines superiority. :rolleyes:
Riiiight. Sigh. :(

I don't care much about what our European and Canadian friends think, but I'd love to hear from some of you Southerners about the VRA extension. Nazz are you awake this morning?

The US South needs because it is still more conservative than the North.

It's also appalling to me that a law concerning voting rights could be deliberately written to impose stricter oversight on some states and not on all states.
True...why not just extend the law to apply to all states? What would the harm be in doing that?

True...why not just extend the law to apply to all states? What would the harm be in doing that?
I see none here ... but I dont think we can allow a gap in coverage in the historicaly worst areas for voting rights specialy with a mid term election coming up.

But yes Idealy I agree there should be no harm in all states being covered

Watergate

The Death Penalty being declared unsconstitutional,

Gay Marriage,

Atheism in our public schools and places of higher education,

The removal of Christian objects from public land; especially the Ten Commandments and the Declaration of Indepedence from the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Liberalization of the media.

Society's lack of morals; especially the acceptance of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle' and the great rise in out of wedlock births and pre-marital sex.

JUST TO NAME A FEW.
Watergate = conservative Republicans

The death penalty is wrong, if not actually unconstitutional

Gay Marriage hasn't really happened in America.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to be atheist.

The media in a capitalist economy prints what sells.

Society has not become less moral. I'll tell you what was immoral: Jim Crow, lynchings, racism, violence in general.

You know, if I didn't have customers in Boston and the surrounding area, I'd never spend my money in a Yankee state.
Funny how there is such division in the US, how Americans just hate their fellow countrymen. Keep spending your money down south. You guys need all the financial help you can get.

We fought and lost, and look what we got.....

Funny how some of the most "Christian" (using the word lightly) Americans are pining for such an inhumane and murderous past.

Funny how some of the most "Christian" (using the word lightly) Americans are pining for such an inhumane and murderous past.
Yeah, and what always amuses me is the guys with Confederate flag on the pick-up driving down to vote Republican. :p

Funny how there is such division in the US, how Americans just hate their fellow countrymen. Keep spending your money down south. You guys need all the financial help you can get.
It's not "hate," we just like drama. :)

Yeah, and what always amuses me is the guys with Confederate flag on the pick-up driving down to vote Republican. :p
What amuses me is the ocassional Democrat with a "Peace and Love" bumper-sticker. The irony! The irony! :D

Funny how some of the most "Christian" (using the word lightly) Americans are pining for such an inhumane and murderous past.
Calling one's self a "christian" and actually being one are two entirely different things. :)

It's not "hate," we just like drama. :)
Please, Myromidisia likes to boycott blue states. Kind of like Muslim fundies like to boycott everything European because we're 'evil and decadent'.

What amuses me is the ocassional Democrat with a "Peace and Love" bumper-sticker. The irony! The irony! :D
Correct. The Democrats did the Vietnam war.

Calling one's self a "christian" and actually being one are two entirely different things. :)
America has the fakest Christians. I'm happy to be from a much more devout people.

Funny how there is such division in the US, how Americans just hate their fellow countrymen. Keep spending your money down south. You guys need all the financial help you can get.
There's really nothing hateful about it. I figure if I didn't have to travel to Lincoln Labs, I'd never go to Yankeeland. Live and let live is fine by me. It's the damn Yankees that seem to want to force their version of 'right' on the rest of us.

There's really nothing hateful about it. I figure if I didn't have to travel to Lincoln Labs, I'd never go to Yankeeland. Live and let live is fine by me. It's the damn Yankees that seem to want to force their version of 'right' on the rest of us.
At some point the federal government has to step in and make sure that all its citizens have equal standing.

At some point SOME government is going to have to step in weather it be state or federal. While there is many things that should be done at the state level disallowing racism is defiantly something that belongs at the federal level. Individual states have already shown themselves unworthy on that account.

There's really nothing hateful about it. I figure if I didn't have to travel to Lincoln Labs, I'd never go to Yankeeland. Live and let live is fine by me. It's the damn Yankees that seem to want to force their version of 'right' on the rest of us.
Sorry, you just made it sound like an active boycott.

So you're saying, "hey let us deny voting rights to blacks, it's our culture, so who are you to judge?"

Sorry, you just made it sound like an active boycott.

So you're saying, "hey let us deny voting rights to blacks, it's our culture, so who are you to judge?"
Nice try. I'm saying we can prevent the disenfranchisement of voters without extra help from the DoJ.

I'm saying we can prevent the disenfranchisement of voters without extra help from the DoJ.
Maybe you can't. Maybe there's not enough political will.

Nice try. I'm saying we can prevent the disenfranchisement of voters without extra help from the DoJ.
And we are saying that preventing the disenfrancisement of the voters is important enough to be handled by the DoJ especially in light of the souths past voting rights record

Alaska too, it seems.

Anyways, I've lived in the South for most of my life. It isn't the 60's. These days, people try much harder to hide the racism and have more subtle ways of trying to keep certain ethnicities "in their place." You have to go to the more rural areas to see outspoken racism. It is there, however, just as you can find racism anywhere. I, for one, see little if any problem with the VRA.
Is this a good example of why the Act is needed?

Winning the Election – The Republican Way: Racism, Theft and Fraud in Florida (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217)

Or how about this:

Black Voters Still Facing Disenfranchisement (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ga04_mckinney/blackvoters.html)

What shall it be? Demockracy or Democracy?

Note: please forgive me if this has already been brought forward, as I haven't had the time to read the whole thread.