“Foolish” college students shouldn’t vote
That’s the message of the New Hampshire GOP, who is pushing a pair of bills that would prevent students from voting in their college town.
“Voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do,” said state Speaker William O’Brien. Students lack “life experience,” and “they just vote their feelings.”
Sound familiar? Humboldt County conservatives issue the same complaint when they lose county-wide elections, blaming students at Humboldt State University.
In national elections, young Americans have become a voting bloc to be reckoned with. But you can thank the Republicans for that — Richard Nixon lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1971.
[h/t Jen Savage]
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | Anonymous on A Performance Review for Phil… |
| i can T stop thinkin… on BLIND ITEM | |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
 | Anum08 on Another “Golden rule… |
 | Adobe crack on Another “Golden rule… |
 | Hassan001 on Another “Golden rule… |
Top Posts & Pages
The Humboldt Herald 
I can already hear PJ, Mouse and the other scream about the unfairness of this idea.
But there are two sides to this issue. College students are of voting age and their numbers often have tremendous influence over local elections. But college students are new to the town, don’t know the history and will soon be gone. They have no long term commitments or experience.
It is very unfair to the “townies”.
If they voted Republican you would have no problem with it, HiFi. The fact remains that people register to vote where they live. If they move for a job or to go to school is irrelevant. This is just another attempt to limit the voting rights of people guilty of voting for Democrats.
Umm, the problem, like military members is where should they vote. it is not a want of them to not vote. Should they vote where they came from, or in a place they have no long term commitment to, or responsibility of the long term outcome. To take it to the extreme, military members cannot vote in Iraq, etc elections, even though they may reside there twelve to eighteen months. Yet by your same standard it is a want of military members to not vote that this is being done vs there is only a short term stay of these people at these places, with no local, and political long term connection to the place.
High Finance has a right to move to a non-college town. He should exercise it.
That may be true, 9:01, but a commitment to a location isn’t a requirement for voting. Using soldiers not being able to vote in Iraq as an example is absurd since US soldiers aren’t citizens of Iraq. Maybe we shouldn’t let people with foreign bank accounts vote since they demonstrate a lack of commitment to the US. Or maybe we shouldn’t let people vote unless they pass a test demonstrating an understanding of the pertinent issues in each election and know what the platform is of each candidate. OR, maybe we shouldn’t let people vote who get their news from Fox since they show they don’t care about having accurate information before they vote. College kids have a lot more at stake in elections than older people do so maybe we should cut off voting at 60 or so.
Kids should register to vote where they live. So if they come to Humboldt, they should register here. Simple.
We may not like the way they vote, but so what? I also don’t like how they wear their baseball hats with the bill slightly askew, and I really dislike those baggy pants that look like they’re falling off.
Like the marriage debate, there is a lot of presuming what people’s “long term” commitments are.
The college students have at least graduated from high school and if they want to get involved by voting will only raise the intellect and intelligence quotient of the average Humboldt County voter. The fact that they vote liberal does say something about who the right appeals to though.
You can’t pick out just one group, college students, and create different voting requirements for them than for everybody else. That would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. So any requirement for a certain period of residency before people are allowed to vote where they presently live would have to apply to everyone equally.
And if you started saying that people can’t vote in a given town or state unless they have lived there for years and plan to remain there for years longer, that sort of thing would affect a lot more people than just college students. People move around a lot these days, but they still need to be able to vote somewhere, and the simplest, most logical way to accomplish that is to allow them to vote where they currently live.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the Equal Protection issues, there are some very real practical problems with any proposal to prevent college students from voting where they currently live. If college students could only vote in their “hometown” (which I guess means wherever they lived right before they came to college, even if it was for less time than they’ve been living in the college town?) then you’d end up with many students voting in “hometowns” where they no longer live, haven’t lived in a couple of years, and don’t intend to live in the future (many, perhaps most students do not return to their “hometown” after graduation — they go wherever they can find a job). That would, of course, be an absurd result.
Amazing how so many people just don’t seem to think these kinds of proposals through all the way, instead only looking at how they think the proposal might benefit their “team” in the short-term.
Golly HiFi, maybe you would like voters to take a test before earning the privilege to vote. Apparently, you don’t see voting as a right, but something that should be earned. Build a time machine. Live 200 years ago. You’ll be happy. You can subjugate anyone you like.
The last thing Republicans want anywhere, is a voter who is informed enough to read, write, and (horrors!)be motivated enough to vote. Can you imagine?
Students generally don’t watch TV (too busy) and that means they aren’t following the Republican Party’s talking heads – Beck, Limbaugh, etc. No wonder they want to raise the voting age. When you think about it, it makes sense…sort of.
Just to illustrate, imagine this example:
Joe College is born in Indiannapolis, Indiana, lives for most of his childhood in Muncie, Indiana, but just before his senior year of high school, the family moves to Olympia, Washington, where he spends his senior year. Then he moves to Arcata to attend HSU. As the fall elections roll around during his fourth year, he’s set to graduate the following spring, and has a job lined up in Tallahasee, Florida.
Where should he be voting?
Muncie, Indiana, his “hometown,” even though he hasn’t lived there in something like 5 years, and doesn’t intend to move back there?
Olympia, Washington, even though he only lived there for one year, several years ago, and has no intention of moving back there?
Tallahasee, Florida, because he “intends” to live there in the relatively near future?
Or Arcata, where he lives right now, and has lived for several years, even though he plans to move in less than a year.
Well I assume that nobody’s going to argue for Muncie (not his last place of residence, no plans to return) or Tallahasee (he doesn’t even reside there yet, and plans could always change).
So that leaves Olympia, where he lived for less than a year and has no plans to return, or Arcata where he now lives and has lived for several years.
Most people “just vote their feelings,” whether they’re college students or 85-year-olds who’ve never changed party affiliation. The New Hampshire idea would be laughable if it wasn’t so sickening.
I loved the commentary in the article from the person who said, “Funny they don’t complain about lack of ‘life experience’ when they’re talking about sending 18-year-olds to war.” Uh-huh.
They’ve been parroting this line since I was a freshman at the University of Georgia in 1994. MTV urged all of us to “Rock the Vote” and while a great many of us voted liberal, a good number of kids will always vote conservative if that’s the background they come from. Moving on…
Whats the dispute here? Its merely ‘common sense’, isn’t it? People over the age of, say 80, shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they have no long term commitment to the place they live.
The folks promoting these ideas want to create a feudal system where people are tied to the land they are on and those who ‘wander’ are disenfranchised. Of course, its a coincidence that those same folks just happen to own lots of land that they use to capture wealth by renting it out.
National Debt = Another reason why students who inherit that debt should be able to vote, not be silenced.
Local Issues = Another reason why out-of-town students cast misinformed votes (their constitutional right, but they should suffer the financial burdens as a consequence for their ill-casted ballot).
So, no change is needed unless to “silence” and “segregate” voting classes/types imo.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
The fact is that many if not most student at HSU are either registered as absentee voters from their home towns or not registered at all. I’d love it if we could get a majority of HSU students to register as Humboldt County voters and vote in local elections. There are continuing efforts to do so, but to date they have been met with only limited success. A greater number of CR students are from the North Coast, but I have no reason to believe that a greater number of them vote.
What they really want is a disenfranchised citizenry who doesn’t vote, just lets the rich run it all, tell us how much they are willing to pay in wages and taxes, do anything they like without regulations. Look at the groups they are targeting. ACORN was successful at getting poor people of color to register and vote in record numbers so they smeared them in a vicious campaign, even using fraud to discredit them. Unions are the largest campaign contributors to Democrats so they must be destroyed. Now students, the voting group who will have to live with the consequences far longer than the retired TPers, are their target. These people don’t believe in democracy, one person – one vote, and are using their wealth and media ownership to destroy it. Working class people, and union members in particular, who vote for Republicans are like chickens voting for Col. Sanders.
¨It is very unfair to the “townies”.¨ Jeez-O-Pete Low-Class Finance, more class warfare? Just because those college kids are´not as smart as you (barfing), does not mean that as adult Americans they should not vote. Consider this, HSU students comprise half of Arcata´s population and their tuition creates much more than 1,000 well paying jobs (yeah, PERS welfare bums with PHDs). I can not believe I am using their large population percentage and large economic contribution to justify the right of adult Americans to vote! Adult Americans have the right to vote, period. What part about this freedom do you not understand Low-Class Finance? Post script. Don´t reply Low-Class. Last time I presented a 40 year economic time-line which you pretended was a 30 year time-line. You obviously can not tell the difference between the number 40 and the number 30. Back to 5th grade for you Low-Class Finance!!!
Good point, Cristina. Very good point.
If young adults are not mature and experienced enough to vote, how are they mature and experienced enough to handle a howitzer or defuse roadside bombs, or make life-and-death decisions, in a split second, over who is an innocent civilian and who might be a suicide bomber?
It seems that we, as a society, expect a lot of our young adults when it comes to fighting and dying (and at least pay lip service to them when they do), yet in other areas of life, like voting, we tend to infantalize young adults, stressing their immaturity and lack of experience.
There should be a small fine for not voting, and not voting should disqualify you from running for office for twenty years.
Election day should be a holy day / holiday.
Absentee voting should be eliminated except for persons with disabilities.
None of the above should be an option on all races.
If you lose to none of the above, you should be disqualified from running for any political position for twice the term of the office you were rejected for. Your sponsoring political party, if any, should not be allowed to run any candidate for the office for two terms.
If none of the above wins, a new election for the office should be scheduled for three months from election day. If none of the above wins again, the office should be given to someone selected at random from the voting electorate.
Free air time should be granted to all candidates in 15 minute blocks; a condition of license for any broadcast station should be the understanding that the public will take back its radio frequencies for however long is necessary during campaigns to accomodate all candidates.
Paid political broadcast advertising should be either outlawed or, if that is unSupremeCourtable, should result in free air time being provided to all the candidates opponents immediately before and after any paid political advertisement.
Pigs should fly.
For the sake of civility and accepting this is a conversation, not a monologue, I find myself in complete agreement with Tra and Christine.
I really don’t think these sorts of proposals are going anywhere, legislatively. New Hampshire is a bit quirky, but I don’t think enough of their legislators are going to be stupid enough to try something like this.
As I wrote above, there are at least two fatal flaws with such an approach: (1) Violates Equal Protection, and (2) Would create absurd results, as illustrated in my 10:03 post.
I’d really like to see someone try to argue against those two points. Good luck.
Heraldo, one of the things in your post:
“Sound familiar? Humboldt County conservatives issue the same complaint when they lose county-wide elections, blaming students at Humboldt State University.”
Could you cite a candidate or an article where this was said?
humlow, two words. Paul Gallegos
¨I’d really like to see someone try to argue against those two points. ¨ Come on Low-Class Finance, accept the challenge and trot out that ¨liberals and students are not as smart as me¨ crap!
@Sam Spade. Paul Gallegos was not the conservative candidate, didn’t lose and didn’t blame HSU students. Also, Allison Jackson, who was considered more conservative by many didn’t blame HSU students for her loss either. If she did, please point me to where I can find this quote.
Thanks.
a.k.a. more class warfare
humlow. Check the ¨Ï hate Paul¨ blog.
I bet those pesky un-American college students had something to do with this. Imagine, acting like Patriots did in the 1770´s. Protesting against the government, outrageous!!!
Protest disrupts Supes meeting
The Times-Standard
Posted: 03/08/2011 10:06:24 AM PST
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors meeting was disrupted this morning by a small group of people protesting the Richardson Grove widening project on U.S. Highway 101.
During the public comment period on the board’s’ consent calendar, a group of six protesters addressed the board, sat down in a circle in the middle of Supervisors Chambers and started singing: “No road widening through Richardson Grove” and, “We are the people and the people say, ‘no.’”
After repeatedly asking the protesters to quiet down the board moved to recess the meeting, asked everyone to leave the chambers and then, on the advice of county counsel, asked the Humboldt County Sheriff to clear the room. A Times-Standard reporter attempted to remain in the chambers to observe sheriff’s deputies’ interactions with the protesters, but was ordered to leave.
After about 45 minutes, the protesters were removed from the room in wheelchairs by deputies. The protesters, their hands cuffed, continued singing as they were wheeled from the chambers.
The Board of Supervisors have now resumed their meeting.
As usual people are trying to misrepresent what some of us are saying.
It is not about being allowed to vote. It is all about voting where you really live. College students at HSU don’t really live in Arcata. They are just visiting for part of the year for a few years. Then they move back home or on to their real new home.
I visited Palm Springs last year. Should I be allowed to vote new taxes in the Palm Springs election ? Of course not.
The college kids should be voting in their home town elections while they are visiting Arcata. In fact, prior to 1972 that is what college kids had to do.
For example, why should visitors to Arcata be allowed to vote for new sales taxes that the real residents will be forced to pay ? And forced to pay long after that crop of college kids have forgotten all about Arcata ?
One needs an address to register. End of story.
HiFi,
To compare someone who lives in the town where their college is and wants to vote there, to someone who visits Palm Springs once and then wants to vote there, well that’s just a ridiculous comparison to try to make.
College students spend at least 2/3-3/4 of the year living in the town where their school is, and there are quite a few who stay through the summer as well. HSU students live, and in many cases work, and pay taxes in Humboldt, but they shouldn’t be allowed to vote in Humboldt? Good luck with that argument.
“it is all about voting where you really live”
Great…so, read my 10:03 post and tell me where Joe College “really lives.” His “hometown” of Muncie, his most recent town of residence before attending college, Olympia (even though he hasn’t lived there in several years, and has no intention of returning to), or Arcata, the town he’s lived in for the past three years, and is still living in now?
warning, voting may cause feelings of disappointment, depression, anxiety, angst, vitriol, and may result in jury duty.
Warning, NOT voting may result in (well-deserved) feelings of guilt and complicity when harmful policies are pursued by those you didn’t bother voting against.
Hey pal, it wasn’t Richard Nixon who lowered the voting age; it was those of us who are in the 50’s. yeah he signed the law, that’s his job. but he was against it as I remember it.
Tra, stop pretending that “Joe College” lives in Arcata, he doesn’t.
He is a visitor just like I was to Palm Springs. His stay is just a little longer. I was in Palm Springs for a month & I go there every year. Joe is in Arcata 8 months & he goes there only 2 or 4 years.
Muncie is his real home.
¨College students at HSU don’t really live in Arcata.¨ Hi Finance, please stop. You are not helping us AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you don’t want the college kids voting, then get rid of the college (and all the jobs and such it provides).
Or keep the college, and exempt the college students from paying all local taxes if they can’t vote.
¨College students at HSU don’t really live in Arcata.¨ Pay no mind to Hi Fi, the buisness community welcomes the students and their millions of dollars with open arms. Welcome to Arcata. Vote, spend money, do what we did in college.
Brad has a good point, doesn’t he HiFi? Visitors shouldn’t have to pay for Arcata’s infrastructure upgrades.
And which laws should the college students follow — Arcata’s or the place they’re visiting from?
Why not just have a HiFi-administered common-sense test like the old Southern literacy tests?
Pepe, oh Pepe — I think you have a constitutional issue here:
“If none of the above wins again, the office should be given to someone selected at random from the voting electorate.”
For many of us that would qualify as “Cruel and unusual punishment”!
I’ve read your 10:03 comment, tra, and I couldn’t agree more. But you’ve forgotten about the motion of the Earth and the Solar System. You can never vote in the same part of the universe twice.
And hifi, you may think you visited Palm Springs, but just seconds later, that place in the universe was occupied by Watts! And then Pluto. Pluto has low taxes, ya know, and you don’t see any envious residents whining about climate change.
Oh, Buzz 9:02? Very creative take on “America, Love it or Leave It.” Your mother would be proud.
Rumbu (you don’t mind if I abbreviate, I hope),
We all have our bears to cross. And the current SCROTUM just loves cruel and unusual punishment — just check their decisions. If you’re such a negative-nilly about being drafted to hold office, just do what the pros do and delegate, delegate, delegate. I never said you’d have to work.
“Muncie is his real home”
Oh, so even though he’s spent most of his time in Arcata for the past 3 years, even though before that he lived in Olympia for a year, his “real home” is his previous “hometown” of Muncie even though he has no intention of returning to live there? Yet he should vote in Muncie? I think most people will recognize how absurd that position is.
Thank you for demonstrating the total unworkability of the policy you support.
Case #1: You spend one month a year in Palm Springs. No, you don’t get to vote there, and no one in their right mind would suggest that you should be able to.
Case #2: You spend 8-12 months a year in Arcata, for at least 4 years. Yes, most people would consider that “residing” in Arcata, and therefore it only makes sense to allow you to vote there.
If not, what about people who take a corporate job in a particular area that isn’t their “hometown” and are going to be in that area for 8-12 months ayear for at least 4 years. Should they, too, be told that they can’t vote where they live, just because it isn’t their “hometown” and they’ll eventually be leaving the area?
If you start down the road of only letting people vote in their “hometown” you’ll soon find out that for many people it’s not all that clear what town that would be. And I think you’ll find that’s true for all sorts of people, not just students, so you’ll either have to single out students despite the fact that the objections to them voting also apply to many other people (good luck with that one in court) or else you’ll have to enact those long-term residency requirements to everyone (good luck with that one in the court of public opinion).
Those who anticipate the rapture should vote only in Heaven, n’est ce pas? The Democrats and Greens who will remain behind, they can vote in Arcata.
All you have is reason and the constitution to support you, Tra. That won’t work with people who put their fingers in their ears and shout, “It’s not fair, not fair, just not FAIR!” I’m done trying to debate and use logic with people of that mentality. No matter how reasoned the argument, how unimpeachable the source, they can’t get it. Cognitive dissonance must be very painful for them.
Great idea, Pepe. People who plan to move to heaven can’t vote since they are only temporary residents. Seriously, that wouldn’t be a bad criteria to use. :)
If they are not clear where they live, then they should do basic research before registering and voting. Yet it is these same people you are worried about, who are supposed to bring up the quality of voting. I’m not impressed.
Many military members do use there hometown for voting. It works for that, why not here?
BTW, homeless can vote, yet they have no real address.
If it was done before, it can be done again.
Before even reading any of the post’s present I will state my opinion and belief. They should be allowed to vote on all federal and state issues if they are a reeident of the state and the nation. They should be allowed to vote on local issues if they are a local resident and not just a resident due to being in residence for school attendance. At one time there was a residency requirement based on time and it should be reinstated. In order to get a resident hunting or fishing license you have maintain residency for at least one year. Now you tell me, which is more important for this requirement, gathering or voting.
Once again, 69er is the voice of reason.
The legal voting age should be the same as the legal drinking age.
They should both be 18.
The restriction on licenses is to keep people from out of state getting the much cheaper residens’ fishing / hunting licenses, 69er. Out-of-state students pay higher tuition as well. That’s not quite the same thing as restricting voting rights, right? Do you want everyone to have to sign an affidavit that they won’t be moving the rest of their lives? It doesn’t matter where these kids are FROM. They live here, spend money here, pay taxes here, and many work here as well. Advocates must be spoiling for sound beating on this one and more college kids registering to vote to prove they can. Yeah, go for it. It will be as popular as Governor Walker is now.
“69er says:
March 8, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Before even reading any of the post’s present I will state my opinion and belief. They should be allowed to vote on all federal and state issues if they are a reeident of the state and the nation. They should be allowed to vote on local issues if they are a local resident and not just a resident due to being in residence for school attendance. At one time there was a residency requirement based on time and it should be reinstated. In order to get a resident hunting or fishing license you have maintain residency for at least one year. Now you tell me, which is more important for this requirement, gathering or voting.”
The supreme court has already ruled that residency based on time is unconstitutional when it comes to voting.
Idiocy
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
“How is a state religion bad, but state medicine good?”
“Anyone who makes the decision to depend upon the government to take care of their basic needs has essentially doomed himself to a life of bitter disappointment.”
I’ve always wondered why people used to turn conservative as they grew older. It’s sad to think that a trend from liberal to conservative might have been a result of experience with the world, but it’s sadder still to think that it’s a result of cumulative personal sellouts convincing a person that liberal idealism can’t work.
Now I wonder whether today’s young conservative/libertarians will turn liberal as they grow older and realize that libertarian bumper sticker philosophies not only aren’t very nice, but don’t work in the real world.
I might come off to some here as kind of liberal (and I certainly land that way on PJ’s little “Gandhi or Hitler” quiz), but I don’t think of myself as liberal.
I’ve never understood why liberals think having government in charge necessarily improves things — if you end up with greedy and corrupt people in government, you want less power in government, not more. Government should provide a level-playing field for people, but it does that less and less now that both of our major parties have been captured by the wealthy, so what good is it?
I’m more opposed to “big” anything than I am opposed to private enterprise. I once thought America’s courts would keep the game honest, but that belief is gone. I feel pretty cynical and hopeless about the future of America.
All of which is preface to my conclusion about college kids voting:
Hi Fi, I think people should only be allowed to vote from their 18th birthday until they turn 30. Maybe that way people would make use of the opportunity knowing they’d lose it after just a few years. Maybe then people would get properly upset at the way voting has been robbed of its meaning by the advertising and broadcast industries, and we’d finally see elections in which people acted on their own beliefs, instead of the ones they’d been stuffed full of by the media and its owners.
It is amazing how we can agree on one thing and so bitterly disagree on another. Out of state students pay a higher fee as it should be, illegals do not, makes a lot of sense doesn’t it. non residents pay a higher license fee, also makes sense. I have in my possession a resident hunting/ fishing license belongong to my deceased father. I went to his home state visiting and wanted to go fishing. When i went to get the non-resident license and gave my age they said that if I carried proof of age and identification while fishing or hunting in the state I did not need a license. they said that only residents were to have a license and that they were free to seniors. this was also my place of birth, a very backwards state that needs to come to the 21st century. Hell why don’t we just let the illegals vote too, perhaps we might hasten our rush to be Mexifornia.
Remember the old saying Mitch ?
“Anyone who isn’t liberal when young, doesn’t have a heart. Anyone who isn’t conservative when older, doesn’t have a brain.”
Let’s say instead of a student, you happen to be a billionaire who grew up Humboldt, let’s say your daddy was a timber baron, for example. Now in addition to a house in Eureka, you get yourself a second residence in, oh, let’s say Louisiana. In order to avoid paying your fair share of California taxes, you choose to claim Louisiana as your state of residence for tax purposes. Should you still be allowed to vote in Eureka?
Just a completely hypothetical scenario, of course. Any resemblance to real tax-dodgers is strictly coincidental…
I’m hoping Republicans all across the country get behind this futile (but very fortuitous for Democrats) attempt to restrict students’ voting rights.
I’d rather live in a society that voted with its heart than without, HiFi. The brain would be a plus, but it’s less critical.
Considering who thinks that quote actually has any validity….. regular readers can make their own judgments.
That is why you are a liberal Mitch. Always voting with your heart instead of your brain.
Liberals have ruled California for decades. How is California doing these days anyway.
Used to be male students had to enroll in ROTC. As long as we’re going backwards, we could make it mandatory again, for boys AND girls. That and require them to watch Fox News 20 hours/wk. Then we’d have some correct thinking, and we could allow them to vote. Since this is all about Turdblossom’s dream of a permanent Republican majority, let’s bring back the poll tax, too!
I think the biggest problem is people who approach politics in a way that is both heartless and brainless.
You mean like people who voted for our DA? Didn’t care about crime, domestic abuse, animal abuse, etc.
Buddhists use an expression “heart-mind.” You’re right, HiFi, I vote with my “heart-mind.” For me, all the efficiency in the world isn’t worth bupkes if you efficiently produce a cruel society.
We live today in a society that tolerates billions of people without enough food or clean water while thinking it spends too much on foreign aid; a society that builds more prisons than schools and can’t figure out why that’s happening; and a society whose “liberals” think a sensible solution to panhandling is to outlaw it.
You think the big problem is that taxes on the wealthiest are too high. I disagree. I think the big problem is we’ve nourished an attitude of self-interest that young people can see right through as if it’s the emperor’s new clothes.
Nobody but a sociopath wants to devote their life to getting the biggest income while others are starving, yet we’ve structured our society around it. If you wonder why sensitive young people don’t have that work ethic you’re probably so proud of, it’s because they see no meaning in being the fastest rat.
College was supposed to be a place where young people could learn critical thinking and develop what used to be called “appreciation.” Our society turned it into a route for career advancement, and we wonder why kids don’t take it seriously.
Take a look at Crescent City, HiFi. It’s one big prison, because it’s populated by prison guards. They make big money, especially with overtime. It’s a nice path to a middle-class life that sounds like absolute hell. America looks a lot like Crescent City.
I think the majority who voted to elect and re-elect Gallegos numerous times care plenty about crime, domestic abuse, etc. They just didn’t buy into the scaremongering propaganda spewed by the likes of Worth Dikeman and Allison Jackson.
But don’t worry, the thing about democracy is, you’ll get the chance to try again in a couple of years. Maybe pick a better candidate to oppose him next time, and have that candidate avoid the kind of credibility-withering exaggerations and half-truths that that we saw from Jackson’s failed campaign, and, who knows, they might actually have chance of winning. Just a thought.
And drug smuggling, HiFi. I forgot about the prison guard drug smuggling. But they get more money than other working stiffs, so they’re doing good, right?
Mitch, I DON’T think taxes on the rich are too high. I just don’t want to see them raised any higher until the recession is safely over.
The idea that we can end abject poverty around the world is a perfect example of the heart overuling the brain. We could impoverish this country (and the entire Western world) back to the stone age again & barely make a temporary dent on world poverty.
Unless you are some kind of saintly Buddhist monk living on next to nothing, you are as guilty as anyone else of “devoting your life to the highest income while others are starving”. Otherwise you would take in a dozen or two Eureka homeless into your own home.
That you don’t doesn’t mean you are a bad guy. You are just normal. Don’t try to pretend you are a saint.
Prison guards have a very tough job. Why do you think it makes them and the town the live in hellish ? For you to condemn all of them because of the actions of a tiny few, makes you as guilty of outright prejudice as Bull Connor himself.
Remember the old saying Mitch ?
“Anyone who isn’t liberal when young, doesn’t have a heart. Anyone who isn’t conservative when older, doesn’t have a brain.” Hi Finance as always is full of old sh^!
¨Liberals have ruled California for decades. How is California doing these days anyway.¨
Kal-i-for-ni-a Rocks!!!!
Raising taxes on the rich during a recession would be calamitous because it would decrease their spending. That’s why he favors wage cuts on middle class public employees.
What do you call someone with no heart and no brain?
So what we have in new Hampshire is a GOP leader calling students “foolish” and trying to stop them from voting where they actually live, even when they’ve lived there for several years and will still be living there for several more years — and instead insisting that they can only vote somewhere they’ve lived at some point in the past, even if they’re not planning to live there anytime in the future. Talk about brainless. No wonder the GOP continues have so much trouble rounding up votes from college students.
¨Unless you are some kind of saintly Buddhist monk living on next to nothing, you are as guilty as anyone else of “devoting your life to the highest income while others are starving”. Otherwise you would take in a dozen or two Eureka homeless into your own home.¨
Sure Low Class Finance, if you are not a monk, you are as guily as any preditor. I am so happy Ms. Wilson kicked you out of our class. You were a constant disruption with your tourett syndrome outbursts.
“What do you call someone with no heart and no brain?”
The Cowardly Scarecrow?
You mean Cowardly Tinman?
Actually, I guess no heart / no brain would be the Tin Scarecrow, right?
HiFi seems more like a tinman to me, as in the movie, “Tinmen.”
I won’t presume legal expertise, but its clear to me that Hi Fi is incorrectly equating residence with domicile.
Reisdence has the general legal meaning of a place to habitate. A person can have multiple residences. Domicile, has the general legal definition of the sole place a person intends to be a recurring home and has also acted on that intent. In law, a person’s residences and domicile are related, but can be different. In general, any residence a person establishes may also be their domicile.
Domicile locates a person’s right to vote, obligation to pay certain taxes and be subject to divorce and probate laws. I don’t know enough to argue the fine points of when a residence is a domicile.
people can register to vote wherever they have a HOME address and vote where they are registered, provided they are around for it and choose to do so. very simple. this happens everywhere college towns vote in opposition to the complainer. can we move on now? please heraldo, we need something new to argue about.
People still vote? Who’s got time for that circle jerk of illusory rule-setting pomp?
No, I forget whether it was skippy or owltotem who said they thought there was a heart in hifi, but I agree. Methinks he doth protest too much.
And no, hifi, lots of people who are not Buddhist monks don’t live purely for the biggest income.
You didn’t answer my question about how many homeless people you have taken into your home Mitch.
You wear your heart on your sleeve and people here accuse me of not having one. But we are really all the same. We all want a comfortable life (however we define that) and none of us is living the life of paupers just so we can house homeless.
College students can stay on and be part of the community
-Bob came to Humboldt as a student,graduated, worked in the aarea all these years, and bought two houses’ and
As for the students- I was astudent at HSU in the 60’s program–students are all ages bur they are citizens and they think!! The students of HSU AND CR contribute to this Area. So Thanks
“If they voted Republican you would have no problem with it…”
Sorry HiFi, but we both know that Plain Jane’s first comment hit the nail on the head.
If they voted Republican they wouldn’t be foolish so would deserve the vote.
If these blatant attempts to disenfranchise Democratic leaning voters, demolish Democratic funding and the massive money that has been poured into the right wing echo chamber doesn’t wake people up, they’re dead.
jean.doran you’re right, I came to Humboldt 65 years ago and went to school here and stayed. Not college but 6th grade at Jefferson Elementary. Then to 2 other schools that do not exist now. Eureka Jr. High and Eureks Sr. High, the latter just the building gone due to an earthquake. Now Jefferson is on the chopping block due to some lame brains.
Sure Joel, but that is only a dream.
They will not be voting Republican until after they get real world experience.
Do you think PJ will admit that she would be arguing the opposite if the students were voting Republican instead of Democrat ?
High Finance says:
March 10, 2011 at 10:52 am
Do you think PJ will admit that she would be arguing the opposite if the students were voting Republican instead of Democrat?¨
Um, Low Class Finance, you´ve already proven you do not know what the word ¨opposite¨ means.
High Finance says:
March 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm
…You could NOT be further from the truth. Our progressive income tax system does NOT “concentrate the wealth at the top”, it does the exact OPPOSITE.¨
Unlike you, HiFi, I don’t want to deny people the right to vote because I don’t like how they vote. Using your rationale, retired people shouldn’t be allowed to vote because of possible diminished mental capacity, they don’t have to live long with the consequences or pay for them, and they vote Republican. Of course, unlike you, I believe in democracy rather than kleptocracy so I support to vote for every qualified citizen.
Any college administrator will tell you that 10%, or less, of students bother to vote while enrolled.
Then, they join a society where half the eligible voters are either unregistered or abstain!
It’s a moot point! Have you learned nothing? If you don’t like it, buy a newspaper and tell the people yourself!!
Worsening the conditions of the less-privileged is what tempers the inherent loneliness and meaninglessness of being wealthy! That’s why I’m here!!
Team-tyranny ALWAYS benefits from LESS public participation!
If I had my druthers, only the 400,000 U.S. corporations headquartered on Tortola should vote. Their financial intelligence minimized my portfolio losses.
I’m no Buddhist, but I would have taken Bernie Madoff into my home, and save the government $80,000 a year.
Mouse, you need to take a vacation.
PJ, why do you feel the need to constantly lie about what it is that I said ?
High Finance says:
March 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm
¨PJ, You could NOT be further from the truth. Our progressive income tax system does NOT “concentrate the wealth at the top”, it does the exact OPPOSITE.¨
It´s all in writing for the world to see. PJ does not need to lie about the rïdiculous nonsense you spew.
Why should I waste time talking to a MORON ? Is English your second language ?
The opposite of concentrating wealth at the top is NOT concentrating wealth at the top.
For God’s sake, use your freaking head !
No Class Finance, ¨You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?¨
Troll Sam, get a life & go hump somebody else’s leg.
So, your answer is ¨No¨.
High Finance says:
March 11, 2011 at 7:42 am
“Why should I waste time talking to a MORON ? Is English your second language ?
The opposite of concentrating wealth at the top is NOT concentrating wealth at the top.
For God’s sake, use your freaking head”!
****************************************
Wow, who’s HiFi “talking” to now??
Scary!
He just “freaking” betrayed his age!
What an idiot.
According to Forbes 2010 billionaires list, billionaire’s average income increased $500 million in 12 months during the economic collapse, and there’s 218 more of them, largely in the financial industry due to usurious interest rates,(illegal in the U.S. for many decades), severely “taxing” working families, and “taxing” a nation with $1 trillion in outstanding credit card debt. Will our socialist corporations be taxing us to bail this out too?
They’ve created NOTHING of value yet are being enabled through deregulation and the lowest taxes in decades.
India’s billionaire population doubled in the last 12 months! No doubt by producing more misery there too.
HiFi already benefited from America’s era of investing in its human resources, why on Earth would he want to allow students to vote to return the 90% tax rates and the free public universities, and middle class it once created??
Higher tax rates will negatively impact his stock portfolio and he might have to cancel a trip to Europe.
You know what the funny thing, is I’m pretty sure if there is anyone who is not to blame for the mess our country is in, its kids in college right now.
In fact, regardless of party line, I’m pretty sure the baby-boomer generation is pretty much entirely responsible for cuts in education, lack of fiscal oversight that brought about the recession, the trade deficit, skyrocketing debt, unwieldy behemoths of the current labor unions, the rising costs in health care, the lack of tort reform, campaign finance reform, the runaway costs of education, the “intern” system that takes advantage of young people, the failure to curb greenhouse gas emissions, end our dependence on foreign oil, the lapses in security and intelligence sharing that left our country unprotected on September 11th, and the now three wars (sorry, two wars and one. . . whatever we’re calling it) we and/or our childhood friends are fighting in.
They’ve been the largest age demographic since the 60s and 70s and the have, essentially, turned the great nation our grandparents gave to them, sucked every drop out of it they could and then passed the buck along to us. So sorry Mr. O’brien, the young people in this country think, for the most part, your stewardship of the country for future generations has been a disaster. Please, let us do our best to figure out how to clean up your mess.