|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
FWIW, here are the locations of Board of Registrar's offices in Alabama, all 70 of them (there are 67 counties in total), and there is at least one office in every single county.
Anyone who wants to vote can go to their county Board of Registrar's office and get a voter ID card for free.
http://www.alabamavoterid.com/permanentLocations.aspx
And all you need to get one is any document that has your full legal name and your date of birth.
Oh, and if you can't make it to the Board of Registrar's offices, the state is providing mobile ID vans in the affected areas to help people get their cards. The list of mobile locations is here:
http://www.alabamavoterid.com/mobileLocations.aspx
Though I doubt we have many posters from Alabama here, but maybe this information can help someone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: |
So you do NOT know the difference between situational racism and institutional racism. |
I know how much folks hate these TLDR's, but sometimes they are necessary for accurate education:
Many people are confused with the difference in effect between Institutional Racism vs Situational Racism. Our own esteemed Kareem Abdul Jabbar did a decent job is presenting the case here:
| Quote: | NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar believes that the situation with the LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling, which resulted in him getting a lifetime ban from the NBA, shows that society today is dealing with a different kind of racism.
| Quote: | | “Racism today isn’t like the racism pre-Martin Luther King, Jr. Today we are faced with situational racism,” |
Reminding that on April 25, 2014, TMZ Sports released what it said is an April 9, 2014 audio recording of a conversation between Sterling and his girlfriend or former girlfriend. Sterling was recorded making racist and outrageous statements in the conversation. An NBA investigation, which included an interview with Sterling, determined the voice to be authentic.
Following the investigation, NBA commissioner Adam Silver banned Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life and fined him $2.5 million after a firestorm of controversy. The move was praised by many former NBA players, including Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Kevin Johnson and Charles Barkley.
| Quote: |
This is similar to situational ethics, a philosophical and theological movement that argues that rather than having fixed, one-size-fits-all ethical rules of behavior, the context of each situation must be considered before determining the correct moral choice,” |
| Quote: | | Situational racism applies this flexible principle by declaring we must act according to a realistic analysis of race as it is in our society right now, not as we wish it were |
| Quote: |
You’re walking down a dark, deserted street and a bunch of black teens adorned with dagger tattoos and carrying bongs made from human skulls are walking toward you. If you cross the street, are you being a racist or a realist?
“That’s what Sterling meant when he said on the tape. Basically, he’s saying, It’s not me. It’s Society! It’s the Man! I’m just a helpless pawn, a clump of toilet paper caught in the swirling toilet bowl of history. The housing discrimination he was convicted of wasn’t racism, it was just practical business sense. After all, he’s in business to make money, not history, |
The worst racism of all is denying it exists, “because that keeps us from repairing the damage.”
| Quote: | | “This country needs a social colonoscopy to look for the hidden racist polyps. And we aren’t doing ourselves any good by saying, I feel fine. Everything’s fine. Nothing to see here, |
|
KAJ Situational Racism
In the example I provided re: African American soldiers in occupied Germany after WWII, their situation was as follows:
1) The left a country (the US) in which a government in theory provided equal protection under the law to all citizens, but in practice, African Americans were specifically carved out and not offered that protection - even though the actual laws said it was to apply to all.
2) These African American soldiers entered a realm (Germany) that had laws which did NOT protect the rights of Blacks as Equal. They were legally not allowed to marry a white German. But in practice, these laws were not vigorously enforced,as evidenced by the interracial marriages between white Germans and repatriated African colonists.
3) In 1945, African American Soldiers could not easily purchase homes in the United States due to widespread discrimination in mortgage loans & insurance. Insurance companies practiced redlining which negated the ability of AA's to obtain the necessary insurance to secure bank loans and the banks used this as the cover for their not issuing mortgages to AA's, even though they had the salary to support the loans. So the reality is that they could not participate in a basic part of the American Dream. This was compounded by the widespread discrimination in commercial employment - thus INSTITUTIONALLY holding African Americans down.
4) When AA soldiers were first stationed in Germany, much to their surprise, they noticed that many German women saw them 1st as American, and 2nd as black. They could freely chat up these women without fear of a lynching or myriad of other reprisals, as would have been the case for them back in the United States had they chatted up (or even looked at) a white woman. This was an eye opener. As they started to develop relationships with these women, they came to realise that if they were to stay in Germany, the barriers to employment, loans, home purchase, and insurance would not be as great as it were for them back in the United States. The potential to build a better quality of life was apparent.
5) Even though Germany still had laws on the books against interracial marriages, in practice these weren't vigorously enforced,therefore not presenting any real INSTITUTIONAL barrier at all. Even though the law of the land was not in support of their unions, the facts on the ground dictated that they would be in a better position than they would be back in the United States, a place where the technicality of law should have been on their side, but in reality was NOT in actual practice. This anamoly is what caused many African American soldiers to eschew a return to the United States at the end of their tours, and instead remain in Germany creating new families and gaining employment, homes, insurance, etal, and building better lives than what was available to them at the time back in the United States. This is a process that repeated itself in France and Italy as well.
The situational racism of being called the "N" word, or being stared at, or being verbally denigrated do not present anywhere near the same challenges to the pursuit of happiness as do the Institutionalised racism that systemically prevents one from satisfactory employment, purchase of a home, maintenance of protection of assets through insurance, and choice of a compatible mate. In 1945, and the years following, the potential for greater success in the pursuit of happiness for many African Americans was tangibly better outside the United States than it was inside the
United States because regardless of what some antiquated laws might indicate, the reality was that in practice, there were fewer barriers standing in their way abroad than they found at home.
This young AA does a good job of explaining his life in Germany today. Pertinent to other discussions in the US today are his remarks regarding an African Immigrant who punches a German cop in the face for calling him the N-Word. But the basic takeaway is the same as was for many African American Soldiers in the years following WWII. Their "Boots on the Ground" experiences were often better in Germany than they were in the US. It's the same line of commentary we see from AA's in Australia as well.
Bieng Black in Germany
New to Germany
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | hoopschick29 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Fwiw, you read about the low volume offices because that's the pr spin to cover the high volume closures. |
You are a better person than me. I can't humor people who are intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to not know or understand. But the person you are debating with FULLY understands voter suppression and the tactics being used to keep people from voting, but doesn't want to own the fact that he agrees with it. |
I admire 24's attempt to fight the good fight against a troll. I certainly don't have the energy to put into a conversation with someone who has never been interested in an honest discourse. The only true combat for a troll is starvation. |
Do you honestly believe that there is ANY discourse that can be had, as it relates to the Alabama DMV office closures, that could be considered both honest and opposing?
I've asked two simple questions and instead of getting answers, I've been called a troll.
1) How can the office closures suppress voters, when a voter can just go to their Board of Registrar's office and get a free voter ID card?
2) 24 is calling some of these offices "high volume" while what I've read in the media is stating that the busiest of the offices being closed does less than 5.5 transactions per calendar day.
Is that not worth diving in to, because it doesn't fit one's "look at me, I'm saving the world" agenda? |
FWIW, the definition of a transaction in this case is someone applying for a new, first time license. If you are renewing, changing address, or any other type of activity related to keeping a valid license, not a transaction.
It is sort of like debating whether to close a branch of a business, and having someone tell you that there are only 5.5 customers per day, only to find out that what they mean by this is a brand new customer who has never been in the store before... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | hoopschick29 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Fwiw, you read about the low volume offices because that's the pr spin to cover the high volume closures. |
You are a better person than me. I can't humor people who are intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to not know or understand. But the person you are debating with FULLY understands voter suppression and the tactics being used to keep people from voting, but doesn't want to own the fact that he agrees with it. |
I admire 24's attempt to fight the good fight against a troll. I certainly don't have the energy to put into a conversation with someone who has never been interested in an honest discourse. The only true combat for a troll is starvation. |
Do you honestly believe that there is ANY discourse that can be had, as it relates to the Alabama DMV office closures, that could be considered both honest and opposing?
I've asked two simple questions and instead of getting answers, I've been called a troll.
1) How can the office closures suppress voters, when a voter can just go to their Board of Registrar's office and get a free voter ID card?
2) 24 is calling some of these offices "high volume" while what I've read in the media is stating that the busiest of the offices being closed does less than 5.5 transactions per calendar day.
Is that not worth diving in to, because it doesn't fit one's "look at me, I'm saving the world" agenda? |
FWIW, the definition of a transaction in this case is someone applying for a new, first time license. If you are renewing, changing address, or any other type of activity related to keeping a valid license, not a transaction.
It is sort of like debating whether to close a branch of a business, and having someone tell you that there are only 5.5 customers per day, only to find out that what they mean by this is a brand new customer who has never been in the store before... |
Sorry 24, I don't think that is accurate. Everything I have read, appears to consider a "transaction" as being more than a first-time, new license issuance. Where did you get your definition from?
| Quote: | Deciding which offices to close was "pretty simple," Collier said. "Which offices are doing the least amount of business? If (they're) not doing at least 2,000 transactions annually, it did not mandate having a driver's license examiner."
Collier said the savings are projected at about $1.2 million this fiscal year. That won't make a big dent in the deficit, he said, but it does correct staffing that didn't make sense. He gave this example: A license examiner leaves the Montgomery office, where "hundreds of thousands" of transactions take place each year, to travel to a small office like Rockford, which "last year did approximately 180 transactions." |
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/alabama_will_seek_justice_depa.html
But Alabama issues around 1M licenses per year (renewals + new). So if "transactions" were defined as only "first-time" then, that would mean the Montgomery office would be producing anywhere from 200,000 to 900,000 NEW ONLY licenses annually. Doesn't add up, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | hoopschick29 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Fwiw, you read about the low volume offices because that's the pr spin to cover the high volume closures. |
You are a better person than me. I can't humor people who are intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to not know or understand. But the person you are debating with FULLY understands voter suppression and the tactics being used to keep people from voting, but doesn't want to own the fact that he agrees with it. |
I admire 24's attempt to fight the good fight against a troll. I certainly don't have the energy to put into a conversation with someone who has never been interested in an honest discourse. The only true combat for a troll is starvation. |
Do you honestly believe that there is ANY discourse that can be had, as it relates to the Alabama DMV office closures, that could be considered both honest and opposing?
I've asked two simple questions and instead of getting answers, I've been called a troll.
1) How can the office closures suppress voters, when a voter can just go to their Board of Registrar's office and get a free voter ID card?
2) 24 is calling some of these offices "high volume" while what I've read in the media is stating that the busiest of the offices being closed does less than 5.5 transactions per calendar day.
Is that not worth diving in to, because it doesn't fit one's "look at me, I'm saving the world" agenda? |
I find it interesting that the impulse of those that disagree with you is to label you a racist, racist sympathizer, troll, or ignorant.
Considering you're an mixed-race ethnic minority, I wonder how many of the people labeling you are white. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | hoopschick29 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Fwiw, you read about the low volume offices because that's the pr spin to cover the high volume closures. |
You are a better person than me. I can't humor people who are intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to not know or understand. But the person you are debating with FULLY understands voter suppression and the tactics being used to keep people from voting, but doesn't want to own the fact that he agrees with it. |
I admire 24's attempt to fight the good fight against a troll. I certainly don't have the energy to put into a conversation with someone who has never been interested in an honest discourse. The only true combat for a troll is starvation. |
Do you honestly believe that there is ANY discourse that can be had, as it relates to the Alabama DMV office closures, that could be considered both honest and opposing?
I've asked two simple questions and instead of getting answers, I've been called a troll.
1) How can the office closures suppress voters, when a voter can just go to their Board of Registrar's office and get a free voter ID card?
2) 24 is calling some of these offices "high volume" while what I've read in the media is stating that the busiest of the offices being closed does less than 5.5 transactions per calendar day.
Is that not worth diving in to, because it doesn't fit one's "look at me, I'm saving the world" agenda? |
You do know at some point the entire Mod staff will have had enough and you will be voted off the island, right? The only reason it's not happening now is that we are actively engaged with you in this and other threads and we therefore take ourselves out the moderation loop. But eventually, that won't be the case. |
What should I have done differently, as it relates to the Alabama office closures? Just nodded my head in agreement?
I'm reading different things than what 24 is claiming. Should I not post them? Shall I accept what a mod says as gospel?
I don't name call. I don't ever bypass the swear filters. I'm providing URLs for all of the stuff I'm reading.
Is it my style? Should I be softer? |
The crime of disagreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53788
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | hoopschick29 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Fwiw, you read about the low volume offices because that's the pr spin to cover the high volume closures. |
You are a better person than me. I can't humor people who are intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to not know or understand. But the person you are debating with FULLY understands voter suppression and the tactics being used to keep people from voting, but doesn't want to own the fact that he agrees with it. |
I admire 24's attempt to fight the good fight against a troll. I certainly don't have the energy to put into a conversation with someone who has never been interested in an honest discourse. The only true combat for a troll is starvation. |
Do you honestly believe that there is ANY discourse that can be had, as it relates to the Alabama DMV office closures, that could be considered both honest and opposing?
I've asked two simple questions and instead of getting answers, I've been called a troll.
1) How can the office closures suppress voters, when a voter can just go to their Board of Registrar's office and get a free voter ID card?
2) 24 is calling some of these offices "high volume" while what I've read in the media is stating that the busiest of the offices being closed does less than 5.5 transactions per calendar day.
Is that not worth diving in to, because it doesn't fit one's "look at me, I'm saving the world" agenda? |
I find it interesting that the impulse of those that disagree with you is to label you a racist, racist sympathizer, troll, or ignorant.
Considering you're an mixed-race ethnic minority, I wonder how many of the people labeling you are white. |
Funny because a lot of us disagree with you, yet don't refer to you as a troll. Because you aren't one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | hoopschick29 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Fwiw, you read about the low volume offices because that's the pr spin to cover the high volume closures. |
You are a better person than me. I can't humor people who are intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to not know or understand. But the person you are debating with FULLY understands voter suppression and the tactics being used to keep people from voting, but doesn't want to own the fact that he agrees with it. |
I admire 24's attempt to fight the good fight against a troll. I certainly don't have the energy to put into a conversation with someone who has never been interested in an honest discourse. The only true combat for a troll is starvation. |
Do you honestly believe that there is ANY discourse that can be had, as it relates to the Alabama DMV office closures, that could be considered both honest and opposing?
I've asked two simple questions and instead of getting answers, I've been called a troll.
1) How can the office closures suppress voters, when a voter can just go to their Board of Registrar's office and get a free voter ID card?
2) 24 is calling some of these offices "high volume" while what I've read in the media is stating that the busiest of the offices being closed does less than 5.5 transactions per calendar day.
Is that not worth diving in to, because it doesn't fit one's "look at me, I'm saving the world" agenda? |
I find it interesting that the impulse of those that disagree with you is to label you a racist, racist sympathizer, troll, or ignorant.
Considering you're an mixed-race ethnic minority, I wonder how many of the people labeling you are white. |
Funny because a lot of us disagree with you, yet don't refer to you as a troll. Because you aren't one. |
To be completely honest, I have a somewhat short memory with posters. If he trolled in the past, I probably just stopped viewing the thread and forgot who the troll was.
But he's been pretty tame and reasonable in this thread.
I personally don't have an opinion on the subject because I'm unwilling to take the time and effort to find out what is really happening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | hoopschick29 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Fwiw, you read about the low volume offices because that's the pr spin to cover the high volume closures. |
You are a better person than me. I can't humor people who are intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to not know or understand. But the person you are debating with FULLY understands voter suppression and the tactics being used to keep people from voting, but doesn't want to own the fact that he agrees with it. |
I admire 24's attempt to fight the good fight against a troll. I certainly don't have the energy to put into a conversation with someone who has never been interested in an honest discourse. The only true combat for a troll is starvation. |
Do you honestly believe that there is ANY discourse that can be had, as it relates to the Alabama DMV office closures, that could be considered both honest and opposing?
I've asked two simple questions and instead of getting answers, I've been called a troll.
1) How can the office closures suppress voters, when a voter can just go to their Board of Registrar's office and get a free voter ID card?
2) 24 is calling some of these offices "high volume" while what I've read in the media is stating that the busiest of the offices being closed does less than 5.5 transactions per calendar day.
Is that not worth diving in to, because it doesn't fit one's "look at me, I'm saving the world" agenda? |
FWIW, the definition of a transaction in this case is someone applying for a new, first time license. If you are renewing, changing address, or any other type of activity related to keeping a valid license, not a transaction.
It is sort of like debating whether to close a branch of a business, and having someone tell you that there are only 5.5 customers per day, only to find out that what they mean by this is a brand new customer who has never been in the store before... |
Sorry 24, I don't think that is accurate. Everything I have read, appears to consider a "transaction" as being more than a first-time, new license issuance. Where did you get your definition from?
| Quote: | Deciding which offices to close was "pretty simple," Collier said. "Which offices are doing the least amount of business? If (they're) not doing at least 2,000 transactions annually, it did not mandate having a driver's license examiner."
Collier said the savings are projected at about $1.2 million this fiscal year. That won't make a big dent in the deficit, he said, but it does correct staffing that didn't make sense. He gave this example: A license examiner leaves the Montgomery office, where "hundreds of thousands" of transactions take place each year, to travel to a small office like Rockford, which "last year did approximately 180 transactions." |
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/alabama_will_seek_justice_depa.html
But Alabama issues around 1M licenses per year (renewals + new). So if "transactions" were defined as only "first-time" then, that would mean the Montgomery office would be producing anywhere from 200,000 to 900,000 NEW ONLY licenses annually. Doesn't add up, no? |
I can't tell you how many they have overall, but I read a number of articles on it to get to the bottom, and the specific numbers they were talking about was new licensees, hence the relation to examiners (who do the drive tests) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | hoopschick29 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Fwiw, you read about the low volume offices because that's the pr spin to cover the high volume closures. |
You are a better person than me. I can't humor people who are intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to not know or understand. But the person you are debating with FULLY understands voter suppression and the tactics being used to keep people from voting, but doesn't want to own the fact that he agrees with it. |
I admire 24's attempt to fight the good fight against a troll. I certainly don't have the energy to put into a conversation with someone who has never been interested in an honest discourse. The only true combat for a troll is starvation. |
Do you honestly believe that there is ANY discourse that can be had, as it relates to the Alabama DMV office closures, that could be considered both honest and opposing?
I've asked two simple questions and instead of getting answers, I've been called a troll.
1) How can the office closures suppress voters, when a voter can just go to their Board of Registrar's office and get a free voter ID card?
2) 24 is calling some of these offices "high volume" while what I've read in the media is stating that the busiest of the offices being closed does less than 5.5 transactions per calendar day.
Is that not worth diving in to, because it doesn't fit one's "look at me, I'm saving the world" agenda? |
You do know at some point the entire Mod staff will have had enough and you will be voted off the island, right? The only reason it's not happening now is that we are actively engaged with you in this and other threads and we therefore take ourselves out the moderation loop. But eventually, that won't be the case. |
What should I have done differently, as it relates to the Alabama office closures? Just nodded my head in agreement?
I'm reading different things than what 24 is claiming. Should I not post them? Shall I accept what a mod says as gospel?
I don't name call. I don't ever bypass the swear filters. I'm providing URLs for all of the stuff I'm reading.
Is it my style? Should I be softer? |
The crime of disagreement. |
Honestly, I don't even feel like I am disagreeing. At best, challenging, or maybe inquiring.
I'm seeing sides to the story that aren't being told and I'm not sure why. Well, I suppose, I'm pretty sure why. But I'm not always sure if it's because of an agenda, or, if what I'm reading is incorrect, only partially true, or misguided.
I see a mention in 24's post of 8 offices closing, the whole story is 31. You read headlines that talk about all counties with African American populations over 75% were closed and then I read that more white people were impacted by these closures. I see a mention in 24's post that the DMV being the only place you can get a voter ID. The Alabama Election Site says otherwise and provides a list of locations, with at least one in every county, where you can get a voter ID plus the option to do it online plus offering up mobile ID vans in the locations where offices were closed. I see transactions being referred to as a PR spin then defined as being first-time issuance ONLY with no exceptions -- but then I read an article which appears to define transactions as being, well, transactions.
So I don't know what to believe. I wish I could be happy just reading all of the positive customer reviews but I'm the guy that also likes to read the negative ones too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | hoopschick29 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Fwiw, you read about the low volume offices because that's the pr spin to cover the high volume closures. |
You are a better person than me. I can't humor people who are intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to not know or understand. But the person you are debating with FULLY understands voter suppression and the tactics being used to keep people from voting, but doesn't want to own the fact that he agrees with it. |
I admire 24's attempt to fight the good fight against a troll. I certainly don't have the energy to put into a conversation with someone who has never been interested in an honest discourse. The only true combat for a troll is starvation. |
Do you honestly believe that there is ANY discourse that can be had, as it relates to the Alabama DMV office closures, that could be considered both honest and opposing?
I've asked two simple questions and instead of getting answers, I've been called a troll.
1) How can the office closures suppress voters, when a voter can just go to their Board of Registrar's office and get a free voter ID card?
2) 24 is calling some of these offices "high volume" while what I've read in the media is stating that the busiest of the offices being closed does less than 5.5 transactions per calendar day.
Is that not worth diving in to, because it doesn't fit one's "look at me, I'm saving the world" agenda? |
FWIW, the definition of a transaction in this case is someone applying for a new, first time license. If you are renewing, changing address, or any other type of activity related to keeping a valid license, not a transaction.
It is sort of like debating whether to close a branch of a business, and having someone tell you that there are only 5.5 customers per day, only to find out that what they mean by this is a brand new customer who has never been in the store before... |
Sorry 24, I don't think that is accurate. Everything I have read, appears to consider a "transaction" as being more than a first-time, new license issuance. Where did you get your definition from?
| Quote: | Deciding which offices to close was "pretty simple," Collier said. "Which offices are doing the least amount of business? If (they're) not doing at least 2,000 transactions annually, it did not mandate having a driver's license examiner."
Collier said the savings are projected at about $1.2 million this fiscal year. That won't make a big dent in the deficit, he said, but it does correct staffing that didn't make sense. He gave this example: A license examiner leaves the Montgomery office, where "hundreds of thousands" of transactions take place each year, to travel to a small office like Rockford, which "last year did approximately 180 transactions." |
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/alabama_will_seek_justice_depa.html
But Alabama issues around 1M licenses per year (renewals + new). So if "transactions" were defined as only "first-time" then, that would mean the Montgomery office would be producing anywhere from 200,000 to 900,000 NEW ONLY licenses annually. Doesn't add up, no? |
I can't tell you how many they have overall, but I read a number of articles on it to get to the bottom, and the specific numbers they were talking about was new licensees, hence the relation to examiners (who do the drive tests) |
Hmmm. That's odd as it doesn't line up with the report above that says that 200,000 to 900,000 transactions occur in the Montgomery office alone.
Got a link on any one of those articles you read? Curious to read and compare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | hoopschick29 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Fwiw, you read about the low volume offices because that's the pr spin to cover the high volume closures. |
You are a better person than me. I can't humor people who are intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to not know or understand. But the person you are debating with FULLY understands voter suppression and the tactics being used to keep people from voting, but doesn't want to own the fact that he agrees with it. |
I admire 24's attempt to fight the good fight against a troll. I certainly don't have the energy to put into a conversation with someone who has never been interested in an honest discourse. The only true combat for a troll is starvation. |
Do you honestly believe that there is ANY discourse that can be had, as it relates to the Alabama DMV office closures, that could be considered both honest and opposing?
I've asked two simple questions and instead of getting answers, I've been called a troll.
1) How can the office closures suppress voters, when a voter can just go to their Board of Registrar's office and get a free voter ID card?
2) 24 is calling some of these offices "high volume" while what I've read in the media is stating that the busiest of the offices being closed does less than 5.5 transactions per calendar day.
Is that not worth diving in to, because it doesn't fit one's "look at me, I'm saving the world" agenda? |
I find it interesting that the impulse of those that disagree with you is to label you a racist, racist sympathizer, troll, or ignorant.
Considering you're an mixed-race ethnic minority, I wonder how many of the people labeling you are white. |
Funny because a lot of us disagree with you, yet don't refer to you as a troll. Because you aren't one. |
To be completely honest, I have a somewhat short memory with posters. If he trolled in the past, I probably just stopped viewing the thread and forgot who the troll was.
But he's been pretty tame and reasonable in this thread.
I personally don't have an opinion on the subject because I'm unwilling to take the time and effort to find out what is really happening. |
Tame yes, reasonable, not s much. Perhaps it is because his position is agreeable to yours, or perhaps it is because in this case you are taking a bit of the same tactic (for example, arguing against a depiction of the conservative viewpoint on guns by shooting down each representation of it as only a single view and not that of the group, although you both agree with the viewpoint and likely understand that it is mainstream among conservatives) of arguing from a stance that appears at first glance to be centrist (with lots of "both sides do this"), and reasonable (let's not generalize), when of course you can and should generalize groups based on homogeneous points of agreement on those generally agreed to points.
Case in point, you can generalize Catholic beliefs on a lot of things, because those beliefs are at the core of what makes Catholicism an actual thing, just as you can generalize on a lot of the core beliefs of vegetarians, because again, certain beliefs and practices make them that by definition, and of their own volition. That last part is important because voluntary affiliation with groups based on ideas and practices is a lot different than, for example, non-voluntary membership in a race or gender.
So while you can make generalizations about Catholics or vegetarians on ideas, it is a bit trickier doing so with African Americans, for example. Because ideas define the other group to some extent. In making a generalization about a group that isn't part of its core definition (Blacks tend to vote Democratic, Cubans kiving in Florida tend to vote Republican), one would need to have pretty solid, indisputable evidence, and be careful with the phraseology (note the word "tend"). One wouldn't want to say that Blacks are lazy, Cubans are overly macho, or white people are racist. At least not without a great deal of scientifically produced results, and even then with great trepidation. Because those things are not what delineate that group.
With political affiliations, similar rules apply in terms of wanting to have evidence to support a generalization, but at the same time, "Republicans are more conservative leaning than non Republicans" isn't an unfair generalization based on both evidence and the definitional practices and views espoused officially from the organization, and the fact that affiliation is voluntary. Similarly, generalizations about conservatives and liberals can be made both on the fundamental meanings of those words, and the evidence at hand. When one is a member/supporter of a voluntary ideological group, deflecting all critiques of the group away as generalizations comes across as either bias and self interest based apologetics and deflection at best, or dishonest obfuscation at worst.
Sorry about the long circle here, but it isn't a simple subject. Where I in my opinion see you is as a conservative leaning person deflecting quite a bit on a self interest friendly but logically unfriendly basis (equating generalizing the beliefs of political groups with the stereotyping of races, for example, as mentioned above), I don't see you either yanking chains or following a pattern of behavior of doing this on a number of subjects (that would be the troll portion). I just disagree with you on opinions, and disagree with your methodology of argument on the logical merits. And we can do that without tremendous acrimony, even if there is disagreement and even irritation.
Because I don't sense that you're trying to get my goat, certainly not as your core motivation, and I'm not trying to get yours. And you don't really hide your leanings, under some guise of being an unbiased, puzzled centrist while defending only one side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | lakersken80 wrote: | | I still think its absurd they are trying to get rid of Assad....has nobody learned the lessons of Iraq and nation building? |
On the other hand, Assad is probably doomed. His best case scenario is probably some sort of partition of the country. If the Russians come in and crush the opposition forces for Assad, it will not fix the problem. See Vietnam, Afghanistan (Russian version).
There are no simple answers in that part of the world. |
| Quote: |
As US President Barack Obama welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to the White House on Friday, Sept. 25, and spoke of the friendship between the two countries, the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning-CV-16 docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, accompanied by a guided missile cruiser. This is revealed exclusively by debkafile.
Beijing is not finding it hard to dance at two weddings, wooing the US for better relations, while at the same time backing Russia in its military intervention in Syria. Coupled with the warm smiles and handshakes exchanged at the lavish reception on the White House lawn, Beijing was clearly bent on showing muscle – not just in the South China Sea, but by allying itself with the Russian-Iranian political and military buildup in support of Syrian President Bashar Assad and his regime.
debkafile’s military sources report that the Chinese aircraft carrier passed through the Suez Canal on Sept. 22, one day after the summit in Moscow between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
When they talked, Putin made no mention of the Chinese warship entering the eastern Mediterranean or its destination. Its arrival has upended the entire strategic situation surrounding the Syrian conflict, adding a new global dimension to Moscow and Tehran’s military support for Assad.
Our military sources find evidence that the Chinese forces are digging in for a prolonged stay in Syria. The carrier put into Tartus minus its aircraft contingent. The warplanes and helicopters should be in place on its decks by mid-November - flying in directly from China via Iran or transported by giant Russian transports from China through Iranian and Iraqi airspace.
This explains the urgency of establishing a Russian-Syria-Iranian “military coordination cell” in Baghdad in the last couple of days. This mechanism, plus the Russian officers sighted in Baghdad, indicates that the Russian military presence is not limited to Syria but is beginning to spill over into Iraq as well.
The coordination cell - or war room - was presented as necessary to begin working with Iranian-backed Shiite militias fighting the Islamic State in both places. But more immediately, it is urgently needed to control the heavy traffic of Russian, Iranian and Chinese military flights transiting Iraqi air space.
Our sources report that the Chinese will be sending out to Syria a squadron of J-15 Flying Shark fighters, some for takeoff positions on the carrier’s decks, the rest to be stationed at the Russian airbase near Latakia. The Chinese will also deploy Z-18F anti-submarine helicopters and Z-18J airborne early warning helicopters. In addition, Beijing will consign at least 1,000 marines to fight alongside their counterparts from Russia and Iran against terrorist groups, including ISIS.
counterterrorism sources point out that just as Russian marines will be instructed to single out rebel militias with recruits from Chechnya and the Caucasus, the Chinese marines will seek out and destroy Uighur fighters from the northern predominantly Muslim Chinese province of Xinjiang.
In the same way that Putin has no wish to see the Chechen fighters back in Russia, so too Chinese President Xi wants to prevent the Uighurs from returning home from the Syrian battlefields. |
China - Russia - Iran Coordination
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | Case in point, you can generalize Catholic beliefs on a lot of things, because those beliefs are at the core of what makes Catholicism an actual thing, just as you can generalize on a lot of the core beliefs of vegetarians, because again, certain beliefs and practices make them that by definition, and of their own volition. That last part is important because voluntary affiliation with groups based on ideas and practices is a lot different than, for example, non-voluntary membership in a race or gender. |
24, I'm only highlighting this part of your post, just because while I get where you're going with it, I don't think anyone, including yourself, actually believes this.
I mean, all it would take, is for someone to come in and spout generalizations about Muslims, for someone to say you can't generalizations about all Muslims.
I'm sorry if this is being unreasonable -- I just think the standards aren't always applied the same way to everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Case in point, you can generalize Catholic beliefs on a lot of things, because those beliefs are at the core of what makes Catholicism an actual thing, just as you can generalize on a lot of the core beliefs of vegetarians, because again, certain beliefs and practices make them that by definition, and of their own volition. That last part is important because voluntary affiliation with groups based on ideas and practices is a lot different than, for example, non-voluntary membership in a race or gender. |
24, I'm only highlighting this part of your post, just because while I get where you're going with it, I don't think anyone, including yourself, actually believes this.
I mean, all it would take, is for someone to come in and spout generalizations about Muslims, for someone to say you can't generalizations about all Muslims.
I'm sorry if this is being unreasonable -- I just think the standards aren't always applied the same way to everyone. |
But you CAN make generalizations about Muslims based on characteristics that define being a Muslim (not opinions about their beliefs, but the tenets themselves). You can generalize that Muslims believe in one god (even though a few might privately believe something else), and that Muhammad was his prophet, or generalize that Muslims are in general patriarchal in principal, or that strictly fundamentalist Muslims are non drinkers and don't grant women full equality in the way that Western civilizations tend to.
What you can't generalize is that Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, or that Muslims hate America, or that a muslim couldn't fairly perform the duties of the President of the US because of their religious beliefs.
See the difference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Case in point, you can generalize Catholic beliefs on a lot of things, because those beliefs are at the core of what makes Catholicism an actual thing, just as you can generalize on a lot of the core beliefs of vegetarians, because again, certain beliefs and practices make them that by definition, and of their own volition. That last part is important because voluntary affiliation with groups based on ideas and practices is a lot different than, for example, non-voluntary membership in a race or gender. |
24, I'm only highlighting this part of your post, just because while I get where you're going with it, I don't think anyone, including yourself, actually believes this.
I mean, all it would take, is for someone to come in and spout generalizations about Muslims, for someone to say you can't generalizations about all Muslims.
I'm sorry if this is being unreasonable -- I just think the standards aren't always applied the same way to everyone. |
But you CAN make generalizations about Muslims based on characteristics that define being a Muslim (not opinions about their beliefs, but the tenets themselves). You can generalize that Muslims believe in one god (even though a few might privately believe something else), and that Muhammad was his prophet, or generalize that Muslims are in general patriarchal in principal, or that strictly fundamentalist Muslims are non drinkers and don't grant women full equality in the way that Western civilizations tend to.
What you can't generalize is that Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, or that Muslims hate America, or that a muslim couldn't fairly perform the duties of the President of the US because of their religious beliefs.
See the difference? |
I do see the difference in your examples. But there are others where I think it gets fuzzy. For instance ... would it be ok to generalize Muslims as bigots?
I will say, my initial gut instinct would be to say no but then, the faith (like others) holds a harsh stance on homosexuality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | Case in point, you can generalize Catholic beliefs on a lot of things, because those beliefs are at the core of what makes Catholicism an actual thing, just as you can generalize on a lot of the core beliefs of vegetarians, because again, certain beliefs and practices make them that by definition, and of their own volition. That last part is important because voluntary affiliation with groups based on ideas and practices is a lot different than, for example, non-voluntary membership in a race or gender. |
24, I'm only highlighting this part of your post, just because while I get where you're going with it, I don't think anyone, including yourself, actually believes this.
I mean, all it would take, is for someone to come in and spout generalizations about Muslims, for someone to say you can't generalizations about all Muslims.
I'm sorry if this is being unreasonable -- I just think the standards aren't always applied the same way to everyone. |
But you CAN make generalizations about Muslims based on characteristics that define being a Muslim (not opinions about their beliefs, but the tenets themselves). You can generalize that Muslims believe in one god (even though a few might privately believe something else), and that Muhammad was his prophet, or generalize that Muslims are in general patriarchal in principal, or that strictly fundamentalist Muslims are non drinkers and don't grant women full equality in the way that Western civilizations tend to.
What you can't generalize is that Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, or that Muslims hate America, or that a muslim couldn't fairly perform the duties of the President of the US because of their religious beliefs.
See the difference? |
I do see the difference in your examples. But there are others where I think it gets fuzzy. For instance ... would it be ok to generalize Muslims as bigots?
I will say, my initial gut instinct would be to say no but then, the faith (like others) holds a harsh stance on homosexuality. |
Fair question. And in keeping with the toughness of it, the answer would be yes and no. No in the sense that while it is a general tenet of Islam, not all muslims follow the same rules re homosexuality, just like a lot of Catholic women use contraception. You could attach bigotry to the tenet, and to any who took it seriously. And even then, I do account for the possibility of ignorance, or technically speaking, unintentional bigotry.
And no, I don't believe that believing a god doesn't like homosexuality makes the person with those beliefs any less bigoted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BTW, to use another generalization, most religions are in some ways bigoted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | I do see the difference in your examples. But there are others where I think it gets fuzzy. For instance ... would it be ok to generalize Muslims as bigots?
I will say, my initial gut instinct would be to say no but then, the faith (like others) holds a harsh stance on homosexuality. |
Fair question. And in keeping with the toughness of it, the answer would be yes and no. No in the sense that while it is a general tenet of Islam, not all muslims follow the same rules re homosexuality, just like a lot of Catholic women use contraception. You could attach bigotry to the tenet, and to any who took it seriously. And even then, I do account for the possibility of ignorance, or technically speaking, unintentional bigotry.
And no, I don't believe that believing a god doesn't like homosexuality makes the person with those beliefs any less bigoted. |
Ok, don't be shocked now, but I actually agree with your response. (Though I don't know that I agree with the concept of unintentional bigotry, but that is neither here nor there). But that brings me to another point (which is one I believe it was Reflexx who brought it up).
Why don't we extend the same courtesy/mindset to Christians/Catholics? For some reason, I feel like we tread lightly when it comes to Muslims, we don't want to come right out and say they're bigots, we'll re-phrase it as their religion is bigoted. But when it comes to Christians, we'll just come right out and say they're bigots and don't extend the mindset that not all Christians feel the way some do (or even many do), etc?
Using another example, we'll get all upset about someone saying they wouldn't want a Muslim president, but then, you've got people specifically saying they wouldn't want a conservative Christian running the country either. What's the difference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussie -- If that is true, then holy cow, we have got a mess. We could eventually see Iran in control of the region, backed by Russia and China. It makes me wonder whether Putin has a master plan for screwing the Saudis for crashing oil prices. It would also mark the ultimate failure of the Bush-Cheney policies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Double Post
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Last edited by Aussiesuede on Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Aussie -- If that is true, then holy cow, we have got a mess. We could eventually see Iran in control of the region, backed by Russia and China. It makes me wonder whether Putin has a master plan for screwing the Saudis for crashing oil prices. It would also mark the ultimate failure of the Bush-Cheney policies. |
That Chinese Aircraft Carrier is defintely parked at a Russian Controlled base in Syria. And Russia and Iran have definitely had active overflights of Iraq in the past week.
(Worth noting, the Chinese have 1 active Aircraft Carrier as do the Russians have 1 Active aircraft Carrier. It's interesting to note which one has been committed to be locked into the Mediterranean. Israel has to be shaking in their boots at the moment. Any potential for an attack on Iran just went into the toilet, as well as Isreali plans to establish furthur permanent settlements in the Golan Heights.)
| Aussiesuede wrote: | Israeli intelligence reports that a new Chinese aircraft carrier and missile cruiser has passed through the Suez Canal. That fact cannot be hidden, so it is likely to be true.
The Chinese task force is heading for the Russian-controlled Mediterranean port of Tartus, to join Syria's Assad and Hezb'allah forces aiming to knock out the U.S.-supported Sunni rebels in Syria. Russia also now controls a Syrian air base.
The Russians and Chinese have limited force-projection capabilities, but put them both together, combined with Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezb'allah, and Assad's troops, and you get the kind of force projection only the U.S. has possessed in the past half-century.
This is a major surprise strategic move, coordinated by Putin while talking peace at the U.N. |
Chinese-Russian-Iranian Cooperation
Chinese Aircraft Carrier in Suez Canal September 28th[/quote]
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38775
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Aussie -- If that is true, then holy cow, we have got a mess. We could eventually see Iran in control of the region, backed by Russia and China. It makes me wonder whether Putin has a master plan for screwing the Saudis for crashing oil prices. It would also mark the ultimate failure of the Bush-Cheney policies. |
Saudi Arabia has enough firepower to sink those 2 aircraft carriers if they wanted to. Of course China being a customer of theirs for oil, it would be bad for business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | I do see the difference in your examples. But there are others where I think it gets fuzzy. For instance ... would it be ok to generalize Muslims as bigots?
I will say, my initial gut instinct would be to say no but then, the faith (like others) holds a harsh stance on homosexuality. |
Fair question. And in keeping with the toughness of it, the answer would be yes and no. No in the sense that while it is a general tenet of Islam, not all muslims follow the same rules re homosexuality, just like a lot of Catholic women use contraception. You could attach bigotry to the tenet, and to any who took it seriously. And even then, I do account for the possibility of ignorance, or technically speaking, unintentional bigotry.
And no, I don't believe that believing a god doesn't like homosexuality makes the person with those beliefs any less bigoted. |
Ok, don't be shocked now, but I actually agree with your response. (Though I don't know that I agree with the concept of unintentional bigotry, but that is neither here nor there). But that brings me to another point (which is one I believe it was Reflexx who brought it up).
Why don't we extend the same courtesy/mindset to Christians/Catholics? For some reason, I feel like we tread lightly when it comes to Muslims, we don't want to come right out and say they're bigots, we'll re-phrase it as their religion is bigoted. But when it comes to Christians, we'll just come right out and say they're bigots and don't extend the mindset that not all Christians feel the way some do (or even many do), etc?
Using another example, we'll get all upset about someone saying they wouldn't want a Muslim president, but then, you've got people specifically saying they wouldn't want a conservative Christian running the country either. What's the difference? |
I allow for the concept of people having bigoted beliefs without understanding that they are bigoted, due to ignorance or deficient reasoning. I even think a number of people in the us fall into this group. Religious training often bypasses other mechanisms of rational consideration. Not to pick on religion, there are other ideologies that can formed uninformed and unintentionally bigoted beliefs as well. That's just a big force in regard to things like gay rights. Feeling god is against something is a powerful motivator of belief and a lack of rational consideration.
As far as christians, I extend them the same courtesy as Muslims or atheists. They are free to their beliefs, but if they move to impose them, I oppose them, and call the beliefs what they are. It is reasonable to personally believe homosexuality is wrong and also believe you can't legislate that belief onto others. While I would disagree with the belief, I would not seek to make the person stop believing it if they aren't trying to legislate me living by that belief.
I have no problem with a Christian president, nor with the competence or ability of a conservative president to be fit for the job. That doesn't mean I don't have the right and even the reasonable expectation to support those who I agree with above such a person. Big difference between I don't support a conservative Christian on the merits and I don't think they can do the job. That's the Carson position, that a Muslim is unfit by being given a muslim, not that you may disagree on ideas. I have no such position on christians. Do I prefer a non fundamentalist, or oppose a Christian who espouses making biblical rules the law? Sure. Do I prefer a liberal? Sure. But equating having preferences (and if not, why vote or care?) To being opposed to the very idea is a bridge too far.
And most Americans have no problem with a christian. Some have problems if the Christian wants to rule under the bible, like Huckabee, just as some have problems with a an atheist who would ban religion. And people have varying concerns with the left and the right. That's not bigoted, merely possessing an opinion and preference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90305
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nice to see representative McCarthy spill the beans on the benghazi hearings... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
