Skip to main content

Trampling on our rights? Certainly. The GOP wishes to strip Americans of our right to vote

I find this to be rather amusing. Time after time, many Republicans in Congress (and elsewhere) clamor that the Democratic Party is trampling upon Americans' rights, civil liberties and freedoms (redundant, I know, but it seems to work for them). Yet now, some Republicans, including former Michigan Congressman (and running against Senator Debbie Stabenow in this year's election), Pete Hoekstra, are claiming that it's the state legislatures whom should select two senators from each state as opposed to the people through the act of voting.

Republican Representatives Jeff Flake, Todd Akin, Senator Mike Lee and Indiana state treasurer, Richard Mourdock have also called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Mourdock, who is running for a Senate seat in Indiana, said the following - "The House of Representatives was there to represent the people. The Senate was there to represent the states."

That's right, ladies and gentleman, Democrats are the ones trampling over our rights by requiring us to purchase more insurance (healthcare this time, as is often the case in most industrialized countries), yet the Republican Party seems rather determined to strip hundreds of thousands to millions of people of their voting rights. Why is this? It's really quite simple. The Republican Party is aging more than a sumo wrestler eats. Their philosophy is older than a yet-born baby is young. So what they're trying to do is cut off as many people as possible of their voting rights, because the more people whom vote, the more likely it is the Democrats will win elections. It's no coincidence that the 12 counties Republicans have centered on in requiring voter IDs for the coming election(s) feature a great number of minorities, young people and old people. Minorities overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Young people are becoming more and more liberal, especially on social issues. Old people support medicare and the GOP typically doesn't (Paul Ryan being a prime example of that).

When George W. Bush was in office and after changing his story on the real reason for invading Iraq 7 or 8 times, he finally said that it was all about spreading democracy to the Middle East - that it'd be healthy for the country, the region and our relations with them in the future if they were to adopt a similar system as we have in the United States. Oddly enough, these same Republicans are now trying to strip us of what makes us a democracy (more like a republic, I suppose) - giving the people the right to let their voices be known come election day. If that isn't trampling over our rights, civil liberties and freedoms, I don't know what is.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-16/news/33217374_1_17th-amendment-senate-seat-senate-candidate

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"