To make the case, she is claiming that Early Voting sites in the Town of Boone actually victimize “the rural people.” Greene understands very well the utility of victimhood in mounting any campaign. After all, she repeatedly claimed to be the victim of gay people because they unaccountably and rudely thought they deserved the same right she enjoys to get married. Such a desire on their part supposedly victimized her value system, and she wrapped herself tight in religious cloth as she led that other crusade locally to pass Amendment 1.
Amendment 1 failed in Watauga County, even though “the rural people” turned out in very strong numbers on May 8th to vote for it. “The rural people” did not, however, vote with equal, religious fervor to put Deborah Greene on the School Board. Go figure. Perhaps there’s some understanding out there that putting a professional wreckingball on the school board might not be the most salutary step the voters could take for education. Personally, I don’t want someone running our schools who publicly and loudly believes that officially discriminating against a despised minority is blessed by God and sanctioned by our U.S. Constitution.
Rather than putting forward a positive platform for improving our schools, Ms. Greene has evidently decided that the path to personal power in her case is the demolition of the rights of others. If Pat McCrory wins the governorship, and if he has both a Republican NC House and NC Senate to help him turn back the clocks, he will sign bills to severely limit or shut down all Early Voting everywhere, end same-day-registration, and impose a voter ID law to disenfranchise most college students (not to mention many of the elderly, minorities, and poor people). Will that satisfy Deborah Greene? Probably not, but if McCrory becomes governor, you can bet there will be no polling place at all anywhere near campus, either during Early Voting nor on Election Day.
Greene’s history of opposing the student vote predates this current crusade. Not many years ago, when she was still a registered Republican, she got herself appointed a Republican precinct judge in one of the ASU precincts with the clear agenda of obstructing as much of the student vote as she could manage. That did not go well for her, and she soon gave up the office, though she hasn’t given up the quest.
ASU students voted for neither Amendment 1 nor for Deborah Greene, which might draw the attention of State Board of Elections officials, if Ms. Greene’s “petition” to shut down Early Voting on campus makes it all the way to that official governing body. Naked self-interest has rarely stood so clearly in the spotlight. The State Board of Elections might justifiably conclude that Ms. Greene is not nearly as interested in increasing the rural vote as she is in decreasing the student vote.
Dan Soucek, David Blust, Nathan Miller, Mr Snyder, Ms Foxx and Vince Gable all hold equally regressive and mean political positions but they're too cowardly to defend their positions. At least Deborah Greene will risk looking foolish defending the indefensible. The others just hide in the church pews.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know Deborah Greene prior to this election, although I'd heard the name from time to time. There was actually a time when I thought she made some sense in her interviews, but I quickly found out otherwise. She is always angry about something, never positive about anything. I think she would be a disaster on the School Board.
ReplyDeleteThe unfair practice of having every early voting place being in the Boone City Limits should have been stopped a long time ago. It's past time to stop it.
ReplyDeleteNo. Deborah Greene is exactly what the School Board needs.
ReplyDeleteThere has been too much spending, too much top-heavy politics, too much squandering of the county's resources, too much indoctrination, and not nearly enough emphasis on true education and what is best for the students.
If you're looking to stop indoctrination in the schools, you'd best steer clear of Deborah Greene, who will work to force her bigoted so-called "religious" dictates down everyone's throats. In a heartbeat.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt you would prefer the current level of indoctrination of politically correct and progressive agendas.
ReplyDeleteDeborah Greene wants to return the emphasis on pure academics back into the classrooms.
Also, the Board needs to have some sort of internal control re: finances and spending.
How is Greene a bigot? Because she did not agree with you as most of the voters in the state did not? Would that not make you the bigot or does in only mean you are out of touch?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 5:22 - yep, Ms. Greene is exactly what the school board needs - someone who receives the largest federal farm subsidy in the county who advocates for more of our tax dollars to go, without any accountability whatsoever, to home schoolers. (My problem is not with home schoolers - of which I have been one - but with squandering money for the public schools where taxpayers have no voice in how it is spent.)
ReplyDeleteWhew, I don't often go over to the conservative blog, but I clicked on that link just for kicks. Looks like there are a lot of conservatives who aren't too happy with Ms. Greene either! It's also funny to see our old friend Mike D. over there... and he gets routinely bashed for being a liberal. LOL
ReplyDeleteThere is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
ReplyDelete-Isaac Asimov
Bigotry is not defined by how many people vote "for" or "against" it.
ReplyDeleteHere are the definitions of bigotry, and Ms. Greene's personal attack in the name of God on all unmarried couples make it clear she fits the definition:
big·ot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
bigot: a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
What in the definition of marriage created by the amendment expressed a dislike for anybody? It defined a term while at the same time allowing other kinds of contracts that do the same thing.
ReplyDeleteBut those contracts don't "do the same thing" as has been pointed out repeatedly.
ReplyDeleteBut those contracts don't "do the same thing" as has been pointed out repeatedly. IN ERROR.
ReplyDeleteAnd absolutely any judge in the state can overturn your contract - which doesn't "do the same thing".
ReplyDeleteA judge can also overturn a contract called a marriage. It is called a divorce. What's your point?
ReplyDeleteOnce again they're the same.
If the contracts are the same thing as marriage, then why not allow marriage for everyone? Answer: because you hate gay people.
ReplyDeleteI don't dare if they are married or not for just that reasson, but enough people did to pass the amendment. Gays can use private contracts to do the same thing, so why do you care if it is called a marriage?
ReplyDelete"I don't dare if they are married or not for just that reasson, but enough people did to pass the amendment."
ReplyDeleteThat sentence doesn't make any sense. You don't dare do what?
If gays can supposedly obtain all the benefits of marriage, then why should they have to go through all the hassles of contracts, when a marriage license is all they need? What's your problem with a piece of paper from the state?
Should have said care. It is more simple to draw up your own contract than it is to get a marriage license. I have done both.
ReplyDeleteSo you have drawn up a contract to give yourself all the benefits of marriage without being married?
ReplyDeleteI didn't need to. I am married. I have drawn up many contracts for my business.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever drawn one?
Don't you see the point here? You didn't need to draw up a contract - you got married, and automatically received hundreds of benefits. Why don't you want gay couples to have the same choice that you had?
ReplyDeleteThey do have and some that I don;t. Take, for instance, hate crime protection..
ReplyDeleteThey don't have the choice to get married to the person they love. So, if gay people have hate crime protection, that's the same as you having hundreds of automatic benefits? Give me a break!
ReplyDelete