stahrgazer wrote:silent wind wrote:if you compare an apple to an orange, then you are seeing the similarities between apples and oranges, as in, they are both seed bearing fruits. when you compare the idea of a test for someone to determine their eligibility to vote... to the notion that it once was a racially motivated ploy to keep blacks from voting, then you are drawing conclusions that they are both intended to keep specific minorities from voting... which is a racist ploy still. I am not, nor have I ever been, racist. I just happen to think that you have to give a shit about what you are voting on... more than say... "yippie screw! I get a pack of smokes if I put x's in this here box!"
I read and comprehend quite well, thank you.
No, I'm telling you the reason certain Consitutional elements were passed, historically, to fight against the idea that someone, anyone, who's a citizen of the United States, who hasn't had their rights taken away for committing some abhorrent offense and not yet paid society's cost for it (felons), should be prohibited from voting because they can't spell or because you (or anyone) believes they're insufficiently informed.
Although, if someone did happen to think laws like that were a good idea after all, I'd say, "inability to discuss intelligently without use of profanity" should disqualify a person from voting; there are other adjectives, after all.
go fucking f*ck yourself... you're a blow hard back fucking peddling your ass back to fucking kansas...
