Skip to main content

Voter suppression by the freedom lovers

Just because one yells louder than another, that doesn't make their statement any more valid. More times than not, it seems as if Republican leaders and Republicans in general like to yell that they love their American freedoms more than Democratic leaders and Democrats do. Yet, for as much as they love to clamor that they love freedom, Republican leaders have done everything in their power to suppress voting in this country. Why? It's simple - there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in this country and the people whose votes they're trying to suppress the most - minorities - historically vote for Democratic candidates and by extremely large margins. The fewer people that vote - minorities in particular - the better chance Republicans have of winning elections. It really amazes me that the same party who can't seem to talk enough about their love for freedom in this country - with regard to guns and religion in particular - has done all they possibly can to strip away voters' rights. Whenever I think about the Republican Party's voter-suppression efforts, the following scenario plays out in my mind:

Setting: Voting center

::A mother walks in with a baby in her arms - that baby holding a handgun::

Republican security guard: "That's a nice looking weapon. My wife's due in a few days. The first thing we're going to do is get our kid a gun too."

The mother: "We're all about the 2nd amendment! Yee-haw!"

Republican security guard: "Amen to that! Keep on shootin'!"

::a group of people walk in, holding Bibles and speaking in tongues::

Republican security guard: "I couldn't have said it better myself! Speak up loud and clear! Protect our religious freedom!"

Group: ::continues to speak in tongues::

Republican security guard: "I'm not sure what you said, but I'm sure I agree with it. Amen once again! Go on in."

::black person in a suit and tie starts to walk in::

Republican security guard: "Hold up a minute here. Everyone else go to the other line. I have a feeling I'll need a few minutes with this one."

::Republican security guard sits the black person in a suit and tie down::

Republican security guard: "I'm going to need to see your driver's license and birth certificate. I'll also need to take some blood and will need a urine sample. My people will do a criminal background check as well. Are there any questions?"

Black person in a suit and tie: "Why didn't you stop the baby with a gun?"

Republican security guard: "Good. Since there are no questions, please follow my assistant to the next room, where you can get some blood drawn and provide us a urine sample while we do some research on your criminal history."

::shots are fired::

Republican security guard: "Arrest him!" ::points to the unarmed black person in a suit and tie:: "Now, where's that baby with the gun? I need to ask where he got that thing."

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!"