View Full Version : I admit it, I don't support universal suffrage.
http://front.kinja.com/56-of-americans-just-fine-with-constant-surveillance-512408497
56% of Americans are "fine" with PRISM.
12% of 18-29 year olds are even following the story.
I quit. I ****ing quit.
The downward spiral continues.. I pray things change and soon; for my sons sake.
If you are raised in an environment where "slavery" and "brutality" are part of everyday life you don't see anything wrong with it even in cultures as advanced and civilized as ancient Rome.
Things like accepting Big Brother as something good and desirable are simple in comparison.
We have entire generations who have grown up not knowing a world without CCTV cameras in stores, then red light cameras, Google Earth and the rest.
To them it's "normal" and it's easier to just assume it will always be used for "good" by a government that has their best interests in mind and is looking out for them.
The obvious "warning signs" like the former Soviet Union, Berlin Wall and the rest no longer exist in their more obvious forms and so long as the Olympics are on nobody notices when Georgia gets annexed or even understands what that means. Those who lived through the Cold War are now "old people" and their experiences were a "long time ago."
Nobody really reads Orwell anymore and even if they did they probably couldn't relate to it in any meaningful way.
At least in the sixties the hippies had idealism. Now, it's just self-obsessed gibberish narcissism. The bleeding hearts, acting hastily to release themselves from the uncomfortable guilt of watching the winners trounce the losers in the game of life, have succeeded in defeating the mechanics of Darwinism. We are doomed.
GeorgiaBoy
06-10-13, 23:33
Nobody really reads Orwell anymore and even if they did they probably couldn't relate to it in any meaningful way.
Perhaps its time for a re-make.
Oh who am I kidding, we have movies like this coming out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4LzhgExvrc
"Girlssssss! Time for your Adderall!!!!" :rolleyes:
Sorry guys, I do not know what you are talking about, they have not mentioned it on Jersey Shore or Girl Code, yet. :confused:
Perhaps its time for a re-make.
Oh who am I kidding, we have movies like this coming out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4LzhgExvrc
"Girlssssss! Time for your Adderall!!!!" :rolleyes:
That trailer makes me want to find a bell tower conveniently located across from a trendy Hollywood night club.
GeorgiaBoy
06-11-13, 00:25
That trailer makes me want to find a bell tower conveniently located across from a trendy Hollywood night club.
You know good and well that you will call that movie one of your "favorite cheesy classics" in 30 years.
You know good and well that you will call that movie one of your "favorite cheesy classics" in 30 years.
Unlikely.
Moose-Knuckle
06-11-13, 03:13
56% of Americans Just Fine With Constant Surveillance
If that number is accurate then it is due large in part to the fact that the vast majority are detached from reality. They live in a make believe world that has been cultivated for them.
Think 1984 meets The Matrix.
Once upon a time there was a reason only certain people could vote....
Alaskapopo
06-11-13, 03:38
Once upon a time there was a reason only certain people could vote....
Most of those reasons were, racism, sexism and a hatred of the lower class. For better or for worse I support the peoples right to vote many people have died over the years for our right to vote.
Pat
Most of those reasons were, racism, sexism and a hatred of the lower class. For better or for worse I support the peoples right to vote many people have died over the years for our right to vote.
Pat
All the magic words in one swoop. Congrats.
It would be a non-issue if we could rein in the power of government.
The Russians contact the feds who drop the ball. One wonders how the gov will process trillions of data bits snatched from the ether and do anything with it.
I'm not paranoid. My enemies are real.
All the magic words in one swoop. Congrats.
It would be a non-issue if we could rein in the power of government.
It would be a non issue if people weren't stupid.
The Russians contact the feds who drop the ball. One wonders how the gov will process trillions of data bits snatched from the ether and do anything with it.
I'm not paranoid. My enemies are real.
Stop that, its for your safety.
montanadave
06-11-13, 06:13
If that number is accurate then it is due large in part to the fact that the vast majority are detached from reality. They live in a make believe world that has been cultivated for them.
Think 1984 meets The Matrix.
I'd add one to your mashup: Think 1984 meets The Matrix meets Idiocracy.
davidjinks
06-11-13, 06:35
Don't quit!
Sooner or later the masses will have to listen. It's only a matter of time.
http://front.kinja.com/56-of-americans-just-fine-with-constant-surveillance-512408497
56% of Americans are "fine" with PRISM.
12% of 18-29 year olds are even following the story.
I quit. I ****ing quit.
The_War_Wagon
06-11-13, 06:36
It would be a non issue if people weren't stupid.
Geez... I WONDER who might have a vested interest, in keeping PUBLIK SKROOL CHIRREN, "stoopid?" :rolleyes:
davidjinks
06-11-13, 06:39
Some people just don't understand the WHY things were done the way they were done.
It's easier to yell racism/sexism and any other ism. It's hard to actually KNOW why it was done.
All the magic words in one swoop. Congrats.
It would be a non-issue if we could rein in the power of government.
montanadave
06-11-13, 07:28
As disheartening as some of these polls can be, a brief historical review will quickly dispel any notion that public ignorance of critical issues is a new phenomenon.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." (Winston Churchill)
While I support universal suffrage, I also support an informed electorate. Unfortunately, moving beyond the superficial, predigested, and frequently skewed news snippets spoon-fed to the masses by both the government and corporate media requires both initiative and effort by the end user.
Jesus said, "For you will always have the poor with you ... " (Matthew 26:11). He might have added "the ignorant" as well. And "the stupid." There is a distinction.
Ignorance can be remedied. Stupid not so much.
“A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship”
Alexander Tytler 1787
montanadave
06-11-13, 08:03
“A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship”
Alexander Tytler 1787
Well, aren't you just a little ray of sunshine? :D
VooDoo6Actual
06-11-13, 08:03
If that number is accurate then it is due large in part to the fact that the vast majority are detached from reality. They live in a make believe world that has been cultivated for them.
Think 1984 meets The Matrix.
Agreed.
People have forgotten or are unaware that within the language of NDAA it allows State sponsored actors for propaganda purposes that includes polls. You can blame whom you need to when you review who voted for it. So remember when you are all quoting POLLS always have to remember that & see if you can see the questions. Polls are popular w/ cult of personality types (read sheeple) which are abundant. There is a lot of skill & purpose in asking questions differently to get different data results. Ask any decent trial attorney who can cross examine. People really need to read more, especially recent laws. As I said long ago, there has been a paradigm shift & most are behind following it, not many are getting it unfortunately.
Here's some language from an article that lays it out in a fairly straight forward manner:
The US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) "hailed" the passage of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act in a press release last Thursday. The NDAA, signed into law by President Barack Obama last week, allows the government to broadcast propaganda within the United States of America.
The BBG said that it gives them the ability to broadcast their news and information programs to more than 100 countries and the United States. The NDAA provision was originally known as the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act when it was introduced to Congress in 2010.
This NDAA provision changed the US Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 — known as the Smith-Mundt Act. The 1948 law set the terms for government propaganda overseas and forbade its broadcast in the United States.
NDAA 2013: Congress approves domestic propaganda
Government propaganda used on U.S. citizens, though outlawed since 1948, was used as recently as last decade. In 2005, news organizations discovered that the Bush administration was paying journalists to promote its policies. The Dep. of Education produced a video for news organizations to pass off as their own and they paid a journalist to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. They used tax payer dollars in both instances. According to Bloomberg, the department told the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that it wasn't propaganda because it was factual.
Bloomberg quoted the GAO as saying, "When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual. The essential fact of attribution is missing."
In a letter written to the Dept. of Education, the GAO said that the inspector general said as long as "information conveyed in the articles consisted of information and not advocacy of a particular point of view, disclosure of the department’s involvement in the writing of the articles was not necessary." The office then allowed the department to investigate itself on the matter.
According to that letter, it's plausible that at least some of the news and information received today, comes directly from the government via what the public considers legitimate news sources.
The BBG, whose board members include notable people such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Knoxville mayor Victor Ashe, says its mission is to "inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy."
BBG said that the authors of the 1948 bill, Sen. H. Alexander Smith, R-NJ, and Rep. Karl Mundt, R-SD, "could not have anticipated the advent of the World Wide Web or dramatic shifts in the population of the United States, including large communities of people from other countries seeking information via a variety of media in their native languages."
"The new law is a major breakthrough for U.S. international media," said Susan McCue, a member of the BBG Board’s Communications and Outreach Committee. "All Americans will now have access to the vital and informative reporting of our accomplished journalists around the world who are working under difficult circumstances in closed societies and developing countries. The news and programs they produce every day will benefit many US audiences, including diaspora communities."
The release said that "the new law allows this process to continue without regard to whether these programs might also be watched or heard by people within the United States, and expands the options for these programs’ distribution." It said that it does not allow them to create new programs aimed solely at U.S. audiences.
The Institute for Economics and Peace's Vice President, Michael Shank, told BuzzFeed: "Clearly there are ways to modernize for the information age without wiping out the distinction between domestic and foreign audiences. That Reps Adam Smith and Mac Thornberry want to roll back protections put in place by previously-serving Senators – who, in their wisdom, ensured limits to taxpayer–funded propaganda promulgated by the US government – is disconcerting and dangerous."
Regarding several controversial provisions in the act, Obama said: "Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds of sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree with them all. Our Constitution does not afford the President the opportunity to approve or reject statutory sections one by one. I am empowered either to sign the bill, or reject it, as a whole. In this case, though I continue to oppose certain sections of the Act, the need to renew critical defense authorities and funding was too great to ignore."
According to BuzzFeed, the Pentagon spends $4 billion each year to influence public opinion. (keep in mind taxpayer dollars btw.)
Here's some more on that subject matter from another source:
“While the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was developed to counter communism during the Cold War, it is outdated for the conflicts of today,” Rep. Smith says in his official statement. “Effective strategic communication and public diplomacy should be front-and-center as we work to roll back al-Qaeda’s and other violent extremists’ influence among disaffected populations. An essential part of our efforts must be a coordinated, comprehensive, adequately resourced plan to counter their radical messages and undermine their recruitment abilities. To do this, Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums – especially online.”
Does that mean that the anti-Nazi and damning communism adverts that were a hallmark of America during the Second World War and the Cold War, respectively, will be updated to outrage Americans against the country’s alleged enemies? It isn’t ruled out, for sure. Both Congressmen Thornberry and Smith have tried to dull the American public’s quickly surmounting outrage by saying that the act won’t be used for brainwashing purposes, but by letting Uncle Sam’s propaganda-spewing communication machine have free roam on the Web and elsewhere, it would absolutely be allowed.
“Clearly there are ways to modernize for the information age without wiping out the distinction between domestic and foreign audiences,” Michael Shank of the Institute for Economics and Peace in Washington tells Buzzfeed, who broke the news of the amendment. "That Reps Adam Smith and Mac Thornberry want to roll back protections put in place by previously-serving Senators – who, in their wisdom, ensured limits to taxpayer–funded propaganda promulgated by the US government – is disconcerting and dangerous."
Not so tin foilish when you apply autonomous thought to reason & connect the dots. Media plays a humoungus influence in our society & culture, especially people on auto-pilot. A large part of problem is most Americans are ignorant to this, don't have a clue & are more concerned w/ Bubba the love sponge or Dancing w/ the detractors or using dismissive rude epithet's like Tin Foiler.
Now add a few million new immigrant voters from Mexico & ME et al and there you go....
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/combat_press_zps96a525a0.jpg (http://s40.photobucket.com/user/teehee321/media/combat_press_zps96a525a0.jpg.html)
As disheartening as some of these polls can be, a brief historical review will quickly dispel any notion that public ignorance of critical issues is a new phenomenon.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." (Winston Churchill)
While I support universal suffrage, I also support an informed electorate. Unfortunately, moving beyond the superficial, predigested, and frequently skewed news snippets spoon-fed to the masses by both the government and corporate media requires both initiative and effort by the end user.
Jesus said, "For you will always have the poor with you ... " (Matthew 26:11). He might have added "the ignorant" as well. And "the stupid." There is a distinction.
Ignorance can be remedied. Stupid not so much.
The fastest way to fix the ignorance problem is to remove the safety nets that rescue people from themselves.
Most of those reasons were, racism, sexism and a hatred of the lower class. For better or for worse I support the peoples right to vote many people have died over the years for our right to vote.
Pat
Let's start by repealing the 17th Am. The state governments need to have their voice again at the federal level. The people should have the right to vote for their Representatives but the states have lost their right.....
Remember that the House was to be elected by the people and the Senate was nominated by the state governments to be their their representatives.
Since the 17th Am, the people elect both houses of Congress and there is no voice for states' rights at the federal level and it is a very large reason for the unchecked expansion of federal powers.
So when people mention that "All people should be able to vote...", I try to remind them of how our government is supposed to work....
montanadave
06-11-13, 08:17
The fastest way to fix the ignorance problem is to remove the safety nets that rescue people from themselves.
While I would not support the complete abdication of the social contract or the total withdrawal of supplemental support to the least fortunate who fall victim of external forces beyond their control, I completely agree with the sentiment you've expressed.
If poor decision-making and poor life choices do not yield adverse consequences, any motivation to change behavior is absent.
http://front.kinja.com/56-of-americans-just-fine-with-constant-surveillance-512408497
56% of Americans are "fine" with PRISM.
12% of 18-29 year olds are even following the story.
I quit. I ****ing quit.
Told ya. ;)
C4
QuietShootr
06-11-13, 09:07
http://front.kinja.com/56-of-americans-just-fine-with-constant-surveillance-512408497
56% of Americans are "fine" with PRISM.
12% of 18-29 year olds are even following the story.
I quit. I ****ing quit.
Welcome to the club, buddy!
My policy now as far as they're all concerned - just stay the **** away from me and mine, and we'll be like three little Fonzies. If not, well, pack a lunch.
QuietShootr
06-11-13, 09:10
Knock it off
Voodoochild
This problem will continue as long as we only talk among ourselves rather than talk to the people who are part of the % who see nothing wrong with the situation. Thomas Paine said that those who wish to enjoy liberty must work to keep it--well, here you have the task. Will you do it, or is it easier to complain and do nothing?
Now, it's just self-obsessed gibberish narcissism.
So dizzy sluts who post pics of themselves in the bathroom mirrow with their skanky tattoos are out of touch? :eek:
So dizzy sluts who post pics of themselves in the bathroom mirrow with their skanky tattoos are out of touch? :eek:
Hey, come on. That was one time, I was in college, and it was the first time I had a phone with a camera.
Nothing to do but train and stockpile. Not just cool looking guns and tac-gear either. Get your friends involved, I know that is hard, can even be embarrassing, but it has to be done. The second rule of gunfighting is "bring all your friends that have guns."
Either it is gonna collapse or we are gonna be a totalitarian dystopia... up to you to decide which you prefer.
Alaskapopo
06-11-13, 10:52
Nothing to do but train and stockpile. Not just cool looking guns and tac-gear either. Get your friends involved, I know that is hard, can even be embarrassing, but it has to be done. The second rule of gunfighting is "bring all your friends that have guns."
Either it is gonna collapse or we are gonna be a totalitarian dystopia... up to you to decide which you prefer.
All through our history we have had groups that have declared yesteryear was grand but tomorrow we are going to fail. And you know what we keep making it just fine. The sky is not falling.
Pat
Gutshot John
06-11-13, 10:53
Who decides who gets to vote? You?
What happens when someone decides that you're not qualified to vote because of some capricious criteria?
Like it or not, universal suffrage is better than the alternative.
Over a sample size that large, outliers are flattened and collectively there is more wisdom.
The issue isn't suffrage, the issue is making a strong case.
So far conservatives/republicans, populated by assholes, morons and demagogues, are making a very strong case for voting Democrat.
You can blame the voter if you want. I blame those who think they're somehow going to return to they days before the Civil War, or that they can clone Reagan and his success without realizing that he was a man of his time.
We need a leader of this time and so long as Republicans keep looking backwards, they're going to keep losing.
http://front.kinja.com/56-of-americans-just-fine-with-constant-surveillance-512408497
56% of Americans are "fine" with PRISM.
12% of 18-29 year olds are even following the story.
I quit. I ****ing quit.
To quote a term from Rush Limbaugh - there are a lot of "low information" voters out there!
john
brickboy240
06-11-13, 12:11
The younger generations have been dumbed down by design. Also distracted by the media....by design.
The younger generations will know nothing of the evils of communism or the old Soviet Union's tactics and treatment of its citizens.
Those that point out the "problems" are marginalized...written off and called "conspiracy kooks."
Again...all being done by design...and for a reason.
-brickboy240
Gutshot John
06-11-13, 12:15
Those that point out the "problems" are marginalized...written off and called "conspiracy kooks."
Often those people marginalize themselves and are conspiracy kooks...see Alex Jones.
You can't blame everything on the media.
At some point, conservatives are going to have to get over it.
Alaskapopo
06-11-13, 12:17
Who decides who gets to vote? You?
What happens when someone decides that you're not qualified to vote because of some capricious criteria?
Like it or not, universal suffrage is better than the alternative.
Over a sample size that large, outliers are flattened and collectively there is more wisdom.
The issue isn't suffrage, the issue is making a strong case.
So far conservatives/republicans, populated by assholes, morons and demagogues, are making a very strong case for voting Democrat.
You can blame the voter if you want. I blame those who think they're somehow going to return to they days before the Civil War, or that they can clone Reagan and his success without realizing that he was a man of his time.
We need a leader of this time and so long as Republicans keep looking backwards, they're going to keep losing.
True the mentality that the liberal elite has that we know whats best for you is not really much different that views expressed in this thread that only some people should vote because they know whats best. I may not agree with how you vote but I would gladly stand up and fight and die if need be to protect your right to vote.
Pat
Alaskapopo
06-11-13, 12:20
To quote a term from Rush Limbaugh - there are a lot of "low information" voters out there!
john
There are low information voters on both sides of the political spectrum. Seen interviews of people at a rally being asked why they were voting for Sarah Palin most were saying because he was hot or they did not like Czars. Then you have voters on the others side saying to vote for Obama because he was giving away free cell phones.
Ignorance is not universal to the right or the left.
Pat
brickboy240
06-11-13, 12:33
And tyranny is not only on the left.
There are plenty of right winger Bible thumping types that would love to limit what you are able to view or listen to and do away with abortion and have us living in some sort of theocracy.
The right has it's OWN type of tyrants...don't kid yourselves.
-brickboy240
.46caliber
06-11-13, 12:48
Perhaps I'm over simplistic in my thinking, but suffrage rights should be extended on 2 conditions: citizenship and taxes. In order to vote, one would required to have proof of citizenship and current taxes.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
GeorgiaBoy
06-11-13, 13:10
Rightists on gun rights: "Gun ownership is my natural right! I should be able to own anything I want with zero regulation! I think I want an RPG."
Rightists on voting rights: "Yeah voting is definitely not a right. We (the right) should be allowed to pick and choose who can vote to make sure nothing changes."
brickboy240
06-11-13, 13:12
Is this a dig against requiring an ID at the voting booth?
Please tell us what is wrong with requiring ID at the voting booth.
-brickboy240
And tyranny is not only on the left.
There are plenty of right winger Bible thumping types that would love to limit what you are able to view or listen to and do away with abortion and have us living in some sort of theocracy.
The right has it's OWN type of tyrants...don't kid yourselves.
-brickboy240
Agreed. There are Constitutional cherry pickers on both sides.
Who decides who gets to vote? You?
Duh...
All through our history we have had groups that have declared yesteryear was grand but tomorrow we are going to fail. And you know what we keep making it just fine. The sky is not falling.
Pat
All throughout history we have had governments become more and more totalitarian, with their people becoming more complacent and eventually collapsing.
Those groups of people that "declared yesteryear were grand" were just noticing some of the thousands of cuts. Without any specific examples, they were probably right, and you are completely wrong.
Perhaps I'm over simplistic in my thinking, but suffrage rights should be extended on 2 conditions: citizenship and taxes. In order to vote, one would required to have proof of citizenship and current taxes.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
DING DING DING
Moose-Knuckle
06-11-13, 15:43
Nothing to do but train and stockpile. Not just cool looking guns and tac-gear either. Get your friends involved, I know that is hard, can even be embarrassing, but it has to be done. The second rule of gunfighting is "bring all your friends that have guns."
Either it is gonna collapse or we are gonna be a totalitarian dystopia... up to you to decide which you prefer.
This mirrors my thoughts.
Bear in mind that there is an agenda in full swing to demonize gun owners, the gun lobby, and the firearm industry as a whole. These same soccer mom, metro-sexual, brain dead, sheep that think it’s okay for the Government to monitor every facet of their life in the name of "safety" are the same ones that think We the People should not be allowed to own semi-automatic defense carbines and standard capacity magazines.
Perhaps I'm over simplistic in my thinking, but suffrage rights should be extended on 2 conditions: citizenship and taxes. In order to vote, one would required to have proof of citizenship and current taxes.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Too simple, never work.
Moose-Knuckle
06-11-13, 15:56
Perhaps I'm over simplistic in my thinking, but suffrage rights should be extended on 2 conditions: citizenship and taxes. In order to vote, one would required to have proof of citizenship and current taxes.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Racist . . . :nono:
VooDoo6Actual
06-11-13, 16:03
Control the narrative, control the OP Tempo
Rasmussen Poll
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/10/Rasmussen-Only-30-Of-Americans-Trust-The-Government-Over-Surveillance
PEW Poll
http://front.kinja.com/56-of-americans-just-fine-with-constant-surveillance-512408497
Gutshot John
06-11-13, 17:22
Duh...
Well then "duh" this thread is dumber than a box of rocks.
I'm so tired of so-called conservatives who scream about their rights, but then are quick to deny it to others.
And people wonder why Republicans are getting their asses handed to them? This thread would be a clue.
So a lot of people who approve what's happening also have no idea what's happening. This is generally true of everything
That pretty much sums up our country.
brushy bill
06-11-13, 18:07
I'm starting to believe the story of Harrison Bergeron describes the typical US citizen even before govt instituted modifications...
Moose-Knuckle
06-11-13, 18:11
Well then "duh" this thread is dumber than a box of rocks.
I'm so tired of so-called conservatives who scream about their rights, but then are quick to deny it to others.
And people wonder why Republicans are getting their asses handed to them? This thread would be a clue.
Question for you.
Do feel that everyone has the right to vote? How about illegal aliens?
Question for you.
Do feel that everyone has the right to vote? How about illegal aliens?
I'm interested to see this question answered by the folks who are all about universal suffrage. Why can't kids vote? Do they let there toddler get a voice in what kind of car the family is buying?
I'd like to see where the founding fathers wrote down that people should have the right to vote themselves some of my shit. Adding "rights" where none existed previously is the downfall of our system. Right to healthcare, right to an education, right to vote.- NONE of these are rights.
Gutshot John
06-11-13, 18:28
Question for you.
Do feel that everyone has the right to vote? How about illegal aliens?
I'm not sure how that's germane. The law doesn't allow even legal aliens to vote and no one I know is arguing that this should be changed.
I think it's pretty clear I was talking about American citizens...moreover so was the OP.
Question for you: How do you determine who gets to vote? Who gets to decide?
Don't quit!
Sooner or later the masses will have to listen. It's only a matter of time.
So you mean everything will work itself out one day soon? Now that is truly fantastic.
Edit: Ok to clarify I agree this is the better attitude but personally I won't take anything for granted anymore. Too creepy out there now days.
I'm not sure how that's germane. The law doesn't allow even legal aliens to vote and no one I know is arguing that this should be changed.
I think it's pretty clear I was talking about American citizens...moreover so was the OP.
Question for you: How do you determine who gets to vote? Who gets to decide?
The answer has been discussed in the thread already. People who pay net taxes should vote, anyone else is voting for my shit.
Gutshot John
06-11-13, 19:35
The answer has been discussed in the thread already. People who pay net taxes should vote, anyone else is voting for my shit.
Really and who decides who pays "net" taxes? Whatever the hell that is.
The upshot is that you're talking about disenfranchising people that disagree with you politically, not to mention an overt repudiation of the Constitution you seem to like so much.
As a practical matter...Poor people don't pay taxes?
You sure about that?
You'd be wrong.
That's fine, go ahead and cut off your nose to spite your face, encourage all your Republican friends to do the same and guarantee that the left-wing stays in power.
Because that's opening a whole pandora's box, the consequences of which you clearly have no understanding and if you don't think it can be used against you by people who disagree with you politically, you're deluding yourself.
Moose-Knuckle
06-11-13, 20:05
I'm not sure how that's germane. The law doesn't allow even legal aliens to vote and no one I know is arguing that this should be changed.
Well John you do have a certain tone about you, its relevant cause until now I had no way of knowing what your views are on the matter.
With the whole “immigration reform” bunkum heating up in this country coupled with the much contested concept of voter identification it is not too far out of the realm of possibilities that we will see illegal aliens voting in mass if certain measures come to fruition. Then there is the matter of voter fraud but I digress.
Question for you: How do you determine who gets to vote? Who gets to decide?
For starters, we have already established US citizens (IMHO not anchor babies but that is for another thread) have the right. Secondly those who have chosen to commit felonious acts against their fellow man forfeit their right depending upon what state they reside in as there has been no regulating at the Federal level on the matter to date. Lastly I feel that those who pay taxes have the right, if one is not a contributing member to society and is in fact a burden upon it I strongly feel said person should have no say.
As to the comments relating to felons not voting; I look at that the same as felons not owning guns. There's too many stupid ways to be a felon. Isn't NY introducing a felony if you annoy a police officer right now? So if some random cop thinks you're annoying, and a judge happens to agree (Remember, judges are not there to right wrongs.) you can no longer vote?
Gutshot John
06-11-13, 20:18
Well John you do have a certain tone about you, its relevant cause until now I had no way of knowing what your views are on the matter.
Tone? I simply said it wasn't germane. If your skin is so thin that this is a "tone"...well harden the bleep up.
Did I mention aliens, legal or otherwise? Did the OP?
No...ergo not germane. In fact the OP was clearly talking about universal suffrage as is currently practiced. Non-voting felons et. al.
When I talk about extending the vote to illegal aliens, than you can challenge me on it.
Otherwise, you're a smart enough guy to recognize a straw man when you burn one.
Moose-Knuckle
06-11-13, 20:22
As to the comments relating to felons not voting; I look at that the same as felons not owning guns. There's too many stupid ways to be a felon. Isn't NY introducing a felony if you annoy a police officer right now? So if some random cop thinks you're annoying, and a judge happens to agree (Remember, judges are not there to right wrongs.) you can no longer vote?
You are on to something. However I should have clarified crimes such as; murder, rape, child molestation, robbery, etc. basically acts that should get one executed to begin with.
The flaws of our once seemingly ideal voting system have never been so apparent. The entitlement demographic, now well over 25% of the overall population, could care less about the long term welfare of their nation so long as their personal needs are met. No longer should every citizen be able to vote and unfortunately sensible restrictions are now clearly necessary.
Moose-Knuckle
06-11-13, 20:32
well harden the bleep up.
Point in case. :dirol:
Alaskapopo
06-11-13, 20:35
The flaws of our once seemingly ideal voting system have never been so apparent. The entitlement demographic, now well over 25% of the overall population, could care less about the long term welfare of their nation so long as their personal needs are met. No longer should every citizen be able to vote and unfortunately sensible restrictions are now clearly necessary.
Sensible restrictions like sensible gun control, sounds similar. The reality is someone trying to take away your right to vote is a good reason to take up arms against the government and that is what the revolution was fought over. (taxation without representation). Say they say gays can't vote, then its jews, then its blacks, then its women, then its people making under a certain amount. Pretty soon no one but the elite can vote. No thank you.
Pat
Sensible restrictions like sensible gun control, sounds similar.
Sensible restrictions like laws stating that we can't physically harm our neighbor, extort funds from the state or misrepresent ourselves to the IRS? It's all within the context you choose to perceive, but bottom line is that the takers are clearly hurting us while doing their best to usher in the very poorest of "leaders".
Really and who decides who pays "net" taxes? Whatever the hell that is.
Net taxes, it's math, not that hard. You get more from the government then you pay- you don't vote.
The upshot is that you're talking about disenfranchising people that disagree with you politically, not to mention an overt repudiation of the Constitution you seem to like so much.
I'm not talking about disenfranchising people that disagree with me politically. I'm talking about not letting people that don't pay in to the system getting a say where that money goes. And FYI, there is no right to vote in the constitution.
As a practical matter...Poor people don't pay taxes?
You sure about that?
You'd be wrong.
I think you don't know much about the income tax structure of our country.... or you really don't know what "net" means vs gross. Most "poor" people get money back from the government at tax time.
That's fine, go ahead and cut off your nose to spite your face, encourage all your Republican friends to do the same and guarantee that the left-wing stays in power.
Because that's opening a whole pandora's box, the consequences of which you clearly have no understanding and if you don't think it can be used against you by people who disagree with you politically, you're deluding yourself.
I have no idea what you're talking about with the rest of this.... besides, I'm a libertarian, not a republican.
werd.
Gutshot John
06-11-13, 21:01
Net taxes, it's math, not that hard. You get more from the government then you pay- you don't vote.
And you've missed the point again...
Who decides how much you're getting vs. how much you pay? You? Someone else? Who?
You live under the protection of the US Military, how much is that protection worth? You have cops, fire etc...how much is that taking from the government? How much is it worth?
You can go down this rabbit hole all you want.
Ultimately you're talking about repressing those that disagree with you.
How does that make you any different than any other second-rate tyrant?
And you've missed the point again...
Who decides how much you're getting vs. how much you pay? You? Someone else? Who?
You live under the protection of the US Military, how much is that protection worth? You have cops, fire etc...how much is that taking from the government? How much is it worth?
Are you really that obtuse? By getting something from the government I'm talking about welfare, food stamps, SSD, Earned income tax credit, Obama phones, Medicaid etc.
You can go down this rabbit hole all you want.
Ultimately you're talking about repressing those that disagree with you.
No I'm not, no matter how many times you say it does not make it true. I'm talking about not letting people that get more than from the government have a say about how much people who don't pay or where it is spent.
How does that make you any different than any other second-rate tyrant?
So Madison, Jefferson, Washington and all the people that started our government were tyrants? Because that is the way it was.
Ditto
The upshot is that you're talking about disenfranchising people that disagree with you politically, not to mention an overt repudiation of the Constitution you seem to like so much.
There is no right to vote in a federal election in the constitution.
ForTehNguyen
06-11-13, 21:37
you do not have a right to vote under the Constitution. The States have the right to determine eligibility. This is rightfully so.
As a practical matter...Poor people don't pay taxes?
You sure about that?
You'd be wrong.
You mean like how I have to pay $10K a year in property taxes to educate all the hispanic kids in my town? My familiy has no kids in the education system.
Whose parents rent a house 10 people deep and probably aren't even here legally to work in the meat packing plants. They pay no property taxes for the education of their children.
Gutshot John
06-11-13, 21:44
There is no right to vote in a federal election in the constitution.
Really?
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.
14th Amendment, Section 2
19th Amendment
You mean like how I have to pay $10K a year in property taxes to educate all the hispanic kids in my town? My familiy has no kids in the education system.
Whose parents rent a house 10 people deep and probably aren't even here legally to work in the meat packing plants. They pay no property taxes for the education of their children.
Actually, the landlord pays the property taxes. The Hispanics pay the landlord. The property taxes help keep your home value up. Relax. The immigration bill will solve everything. ;)
Gutshot John
06-11-13, 21:54
"All men would be tyrants if they could."
-Abigail Adams
Those that scream about liberty perhaps most of all.
GeorgiaBoy
06-11-13, 21:58
You mean like how I have to pay $10K a year in property taxes to educate all the hispanic kids in my town? My familiy has no kids in the education system.
Whose parents rent a house 10 people deep and probably aren't even here legally to work in the meat packing plants. They pay no property taxes for the education of their children.
You think that only those that have kids in school should be required to pay property taxes to fund public schools?
ForTehNguyen
06-11-13, 22:09
Really?
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.
14th Amendment, Section 2
19th Amendment
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
It was never stated that you have the right to vote how can the citizens be entitled to all privileges and immunities of something that doesnt exist? Same with 14A section 2
19A says you cannot exclude voting on the basis of gender. There are plenty of other things that can be use to exclude.
none of these guarantee you the right to vote, only what the States cant exclude you by. Why do these amendments exist if everyone already had the right to vote, because they dont. The federal govt does not determine voting eligibility, the States do. Do you not realize that everyone voting is one of the reasons why this country is in trouble and keeps getting utter crap politicians? You are imagining things in the Constitution that are not there. The Founding Fathers did not want a democracy.
one of many articles explaining it:
http://www.democracyjournal.org/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote.php?page=all
Hunter Rose
06-11-13, 22:25
You think that only those that have kids in school should be required to pay property taxes to fund public schools?
Sure. Those with children made a choice to have them. I chose not too. Why should I have to pay for your choice? How's that any different than my tax dollars going to welfare?
I work with a guy at the the same salary. He chose to have 5 children. With child tax credits, he ends up paying nothing come tax time. I chose not to have children. Not only do I have to pay to educate his kids, I have to pick up the extra slack from his tax credit all based on a personal choice he made.
The obvious "warning signs" like the former Soviet Union, Berlin Wall and the rest no longer exist in their more obvious forms and so long as the Olympics are on nobody notices when Georgia gets annexed or even understands what that means.
Georgia was not "annexed". Russia had peacekeepers placed in North Ossetia and Abkhazia (not to mention Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan). Those small republics were (and still are) key to surrounding Russia with NATO bases.
The same is true for Chechnya and Dagestan. In each case the West (led by the US) fomented tensions, armed, aided and abetted the Wahhabbists much like it did with the KLA in Bosnia and later in Libya, Mali (more French support here) and now Syria.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
GeorgiaBoy
06-11-13, 22:48
Sure. Those with children made a choice to have them. I chose not too. Why should I have to pay for your choice? How's that any different than my tax dollars going to welfare?
I work with a guy at the the same salary. He chose to have 5 children. With child tax credits, he ends up paying nothing come tax time. I chose not to have children. Not only do I have to pay to educate his kids, I have to pick up the extra slack from his tax credit all based on a personal choice he made.
You realize that would be punishing the kids, not the parents, right?
The kids have no choice in coming into this world. So they should be debarred the opportunity for a quality education because their parents are poor? That is the entire basis behind public education - that every child has an equal chance for success by having a basic education. Children with rich parents should not be the only ones to be able to have a decent education.
You mean like how I have to pay $10K a year in property taxes to educate all the hispanic kids in my town? My familiy has no kids in the education system.
Whose parents rent a house 10 people deep and probably aren't even here legally to work in the meat packing plants. They pay no property taxes for the education of their children.
You think that only those that have kids in school should be required to pay property taxes to fund public schools?
Sure. Those with children made a choice to have them. I chose not too. Why should I have to pay for your choice? How's that any different than my tax dollars going to welfare?
I work with a guy at the the same salary. He chose to have 5 children. With child tax credits, he ends up paying nothing come tax time. I chose not to have children. Not only do I have to pay to educate his kids, I have to pick up the extra slack from his tax credit all based on a personal choice he made.
You realize that would be punishing the kids, not the parents, right?
The kids have no choice in coming into this world. So they should be debarred the opportunity for a quality education because their parents are poor? That is the entire basis behind public education - that every child has an equal chance for success by having a basic education. Children with rich parents should not be the only ones to be able to have a decent education.
There are two issues here.
Illegal aliens and "poor" citizens.
The illegal issue obviously needs to be taken care of.
I've debated and done quite a bit of thinking on the issue of paying for primary public education.
My bottom line philosophy is that basic(primary) education is naturally a social/collective activity.
Being charitable, It's therefore reasonable to allocate a portion of the taxpayers' contribution to education.
The overall societal benefits of everyone being provided a basic education is "worth" the unfairness in any particular category of tax payment vs direct benefit.
We have semi informed voters now. Imagine how totally uninformed they would be of they had NO access to "free"* education.
* free, meaning paid for by the productive contributing members of society.
Good schools, like good roads and proximity to services, increase the appeal of an area to most traditional families. Local tax rates reflect that.
Secondary education is another story, where I believe "pay to play" is the most appropriate. Gov. Grants muddy up that clean model too.
Colleges are businesses. They are in it to make money.
GeorgiaBoy
06-12-13, 00:05
My bottom line philosophy is that basic(primary) education is naturally a social/collective activity.
Being charitable, It's therefore reasonable to allocate a portion of the taxpayers' contribution to education.
The overall societal benefits of everyone being provided a basic education is "worth" the unfairness in any particular category of tax payment vs direct benefit.
We have semi informed voters now. Imagine how totally uninformed they would be of they had NO access to "free"* education.
* free, meaning paid for by the productive contributing members of society.
Good schools, like good roads and proximity to services, increase the appeal of an area to most traditional families. Local tax rates reflect that.
Secondary education is another story, where I believe "pay to play" is the most appropriate. Gov. Grants muddy up that clean model too.
Colleges are businesses. They are in it to make money.
I agree on all counts.
Too simple, never work.
Sure it would - it's called the Fair Tax. Everybody pays it, everyone has buy-in, all adult citizens get to vote.
Well then "duh" this thread is dumber than a box of rocks.
I'm so tired of so-called conservatives who scream about their rights, but then are quick to deny it to others.
And people wonder why Republicans are getting their asses handed to them? This thread would be a clue.
Can you hear how hard my eyes are rolling?
This thread is about the poll results.
Being charitable, It's therefore reasonable to allocate a portion of the taxpayers' contribution to education.
How charitable do I have to be? We have taken the county to court once and won over them them trying to raise our property taxes.
They are now trying an 11% hike again this year and we are going back to court.
They are trying to increase the value several times more than the rate of inflation or anyone's salary.
How much do I have to pay? It is becoming so bad that some cannot afford to own the property anymore because the taxes are so high.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 10:53
The answer has been discussed in the thread already. People who pay net taxes should vote, anyone else is voting for my shit.
This, end of story.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 10:57
Really and who decides who pays "net" taxes? Whatever the hell that is.
The upshot is that you're talking about disenfranchising people that disagree with you politically, not to mention an overt repudiation of the Constitution you seem to like so much.
As a practical matter...Poor people don't pay taxes?
You sure about that?
You'd be wrong.
That's fine, go ahead and cut off your nose to spite your face, encourage all your Republican friends to do the same and guarantee that the left-wing stays in power.
Because that's opening a whole pandora's box, the consequences of which you clearly have no understanding and if you don't think it can be used against you by people who disagree with you politically, you're deluding yourself.
Own property, you get a vote. I know this goes against some of your dear leader's most cherished principles - because it ensures that only people who are putting in have a say in how the money is spent. Don't like it?
The consequences of letting anyone who can fog a mirror vote are what's happening today. The takers will always outnumber the producers if you let the takers decide how much they're going to take.
Eventually, the producers will get tired of having their shit stolen.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 10:58
Sensible restrictions like sensible gun control, sounds similar. The reality is someone trying to take away your right to vote is a good reason to take up arms against the government and that is what the revolution was fought over. (taxation without representation). Say they say gays can't vote, then its jews, then its blacks, then its women, then its people making under a certain amount. Pretty soon no one but the elite can vote. No thank you.
Pat
You bet. Because THIS shit is working out so well.
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 11:09
You bet. Because THIS shit is working out so well.
Actually it is working out we are the worlds super power and the worlds largest economy and we as citizens enjoy the most personal freedoms of any country on the earth. Yes its working out very well. Taking peoples freedom is not the answer. Educating them is.
Pat
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 11:49
Actually it is working out we are the worlds super power and the worlds largest economy and we as citizens enjoy the most personal freedoms of any country on the earth. Yes its working out very well. Taking peoples freedom is not the answer. Educating them is.
Pat
Being able to believe what you just said makes sense, makes you part of the problem.
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 12:00
Being able to believe what you just said makes sense, makes you part of the problem.
The problem is some people wanting to take other peoples rights from them. That is what tyrants do. The problem with limiting who votes is who gets to decide. What if your among the selected groups that is disqualified from voting? Voting is the most sacred rights there is. Without being able to vote we would quickly lose our 1st and 2nd amendment rights we would lose them all. The US being a super power and an economic power house is not in contest its fact. I don't consider living in a free country a problem. That is almost along the lines of thinking that Bloomberg has. He wants to take away your free choice because he thinks he knows what is best for you.
Pat
Let's start by repealing the 17th Am. The state governments need to have their voice again at the federal level. The people should have the right to vote for their Representatives but the states have lost their right.....
Remember that the House was to be elected by the people and the Senate was nominated by the state governments to be their their representatives.
Since the 17th Am, the people elect both houses of Congress and there is no voice for states' rights at the federal level and it is a very large reason for the unchecked expansion of federal powers.
So when people mention that "All people should be able to vote...", I try to remind them of how our government is supposed to work....
i feel like this sort of blanket plan would lead to all kinds of impractical outcomes, of which you yourself would actually not approve.
what if states all went on their own again. how would you get fuel? trade with another state? buy direct from opec countries? how many jurisdictions would your fuel travel through? how many additional pipelines would need to be built to transport said fuel across the favorable lands and avoid the unfavorable lands that don't have trade agreements with you?
how quickly would beauracracy balloon if international merchants of fuel, or anything else, had to complete separate paperwork for each and every state or consortium of states that they traded with?
or do you assume that the united states would largely stay the same without the current rules in place?
Own property, you get a vote. I know this goes against some of your dear leader's most cherished principles - because it ensures that only people who are putting in have a say in how the money is spent. Don't like it?
The consequences of letting anyone who can fog a mirror vote are what's happening today. The takers will always outnumber the producers if you let the takers decide how much they're going to take.
Eventually, the producers will get tired of having their shit stolen.
Property ownership is a meaningless metric when it comes to how much money is contributed to the coffers. Plenty of people rent in NYC and still pay far more in income taxes than either of us.
That is why I am in favor of a Fair Tax. Everybody pays, everyone has buy-in, adult citizens get to vote.
That pretty much sums up our country.
in regards to how no one in our country knows what's going on...
how many people actually know what prism is?
are people offended by prism because it is warrantless? is it warrantless? does anyone even know if it is warrantless? what if the fisa warrant and court order to use the system were not leaked? what if prism is it just the name of the system that is used to interface between servers at name-that-company and the servers at the nsa?
surely with enough probable cause it should be legal to delve into the metadata and the live electronic communications of a suspected individual. or is even that in question?
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 12:14
Property ownership is a meaningless metric when it comes to how much money is contributed to the coffers. Plenty of people rent in NYC and still pay far more in income taxes than either of us.
That is why I am in favor of a Fair Tax. Everybody pays, everyone has buy-in, adult citizens get to vote.
A fair tax or a flat tax are great ideas but neither should be a determining factor in your right to vote. If your a US citizen 18 and over who is not a felon you should be able to vote. No exuded classes. The poor should have as much say as the rich at the ballot box.
Pat
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 12:14
It was never stated that you have the right to vote how can the citizens be entitled to all privileges and immunities of something that doesnt exist?
You do know what "privileges and immunities" means right?
Does the Constitution bestow your rights?
Or does it prevent the government from taking them?
The claim was that there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to vote. Clearly that claim was wrong.
There are clearly three items about enshrining suffrage as a right that CANNOT BE DENIED TO ANYONE ON THE BASIS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, SEXUAL, RACIAL, OR OTHER POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 12:20
I know this goes against some of your dear leader's most cherished principles - because it ensures that only people who are putting in have a say in how the money is spent. Don't like it?
Wow, not only is that 100% wrong...but bar none that is the most dishonest thing I've ever seen you post. That takes some doing.
Really that's your response to those who disagree with you?
No wonder the Conservatives is taking it on the chin...because of fringe morons who want to take the vote away from those they disagree with.
So much for all this happy talk about liberty, if the situation was reversed, you and your ilk be just as much the tyrant as the "dear leader" you claim to despise.
You and everyone who agrees with are EXACTLY like him. No wonder you hate him so much. He reminds you of you.
Really if you're what passes for a Conservative these days, the American public is correct in rejecting you. Stop calling yourself a Conservative, it gives real conservatives a bad name.
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 12:34
This, end of story.
And again you keep dancing around the issue. I understand the whole "net taxes" thing, but it isn't exactly easy to quantify, and more importantly WHO GETS TO DECIDE??????
Is it just income tax - welfare = net tax? SS, Medicare?
What about retirees who earned their way and paid taxes all their lives and now live on SS and medicare?
What about Veterans receiving assistance or disability?
What about the benefit you get from using the roads, or having a fire department?
If your neighbors house burns down and the FD comes and puts it out, you still benefit because your house didn't go up?
What about those that are paying back student loans, but otherwise work and pay taxes?
Who quantifies all that? Who gets to make the decision that you're allowed to vote? Do you really want to give a democratic bureaucrat the opportunity to judge whether you've paid enough tax to vote? Because ultimately thats exactly what you get.
At least the founding fathers had a clear property requirement, but this stupidity of "net taxes" makes about as much sense as a soup sandwich.
You can write your criteria all you want, WHO GETS TO INTERPRET THAT CRITERIA IS THE PROBLEM!!!
If you want to buy into that Romney 47% horsepuckey, you're conservative ideals won't win an election.
End of story.
The problem is some people wanting to take other peoples rights from them. That is what tyrants do. The problem with limiting who votes is who gets to decide. What if your among the selected groups that is disqualified from voting? Voting is the most sacred rights there is. Without being able to vote we would quickly lose our 1st and 2nd amendment rights we would lose them all. The US being a super power and an economic power house is not in contest its fact. I don't consider living in a free country a problem. That is almost along the lines of thinking that Bloomberg has. He wants to take away your free choice because he thinks he knows what is best for you.
Pat
I completely agree with Pat on this. In my estimation, the answer is NOT stripping rights from people. That's just going backwards, and will invariably end up giving the wealthy / politically-connected the upper hand. I would bet that if the dead could talk many who gave their lives defending this country in battle would flatly reject the idea.
My opinion is that, if you want to achieve some lasting progress, you have to improve the education, awareness, and cultural values of the people. Too many stupid, willfully ignorant, and chronically governmentally dependent people are having too many children. Even the moneyed and educated classes are spawning worthless consumption zombies. It's eroding from all angles, not just because of the "usual suspects". Stripping away rights is just going to delay the type of reckoning that we need to have if we're going to survive long term. It sucks, because it's a bitter pill. Our chances of success are very small. The inertia of ignorance and apathy is going to be nearly impossible to overcome, but to pull the tyranny lever would be folly because it 1) won't change the eventual outcome and 2) simply favors those with political power.
How do you inspire people to be more "aware" and to care about what's going on? I'm not sure.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 12:44
Knock it off.
Voodoochild
I completely agree with Pat on this. In my estimation, the answer is NOT stripping rights from people. That's just going backwards, and will invariably end up giving the wealthy / politically-connected the upper hand. I would bet that if the dead could talk many who gave their lives defending this country in battle would flatly reject the idea.
i would agree, but i always see the trend that conservative leaning folks will identify with elitism even though in the end they would very likely marginalize their own demographic because the truly elite ar ethe 1% at the very top running everything else already. whatever happens at the level here (i would contend... anyone bothering to talk on m4carbine is probably at this level), is meaningless to the truly elite.
My opinion is that, if you want to achieve some lasting progress, you have to improve the education, awareness, and cultural values of the people. Too many stupid, willfully ignorant, and chronically governmentally dependent people are having too many children.
truth. i think the fundamental problem however is that the world has always been this way, and dare i say, will always be this way. since antiquity to now, is it possible at any point in human history to say that the smart outnumbered the stupid? that the hard working outnumbered the lazy? the one constant is self interest. humans are self interested. we can't avoid statistics, the gaussian distribution, the bell curve. in every system that involves human capital there will be the few who are great, the vast majority that are eh, and the few who are truly awful. you have to admit... the people at the bottom of the systems serve a purpose, if not anything, to just fulfill the statistics. every few generations a real gem rises up out of that crapheap...
Even the moneyed and educated classes are spawning worthless consumption zombies. It's eroding from all angles, not just because of the "usual suspects".
i would argue it's because of money that the worthless consumption zombies exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyq60bkxEC4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
look at this video where mike tyson speaks on his very own children. in order to achieve there needs to be adversity. some type of adversity. something that creates drive, hunger, desire.
Stripping away rights is just going to delay the type of reckoning that we need to have if we're going to survive long term. It sucks, because it's a bitter pill. Our chances of success are very small. The inertia of ignorance and apathy is going to be nearly impossible to overcome, but to pull the tyranny lever would be folly because it 1) won't change the eventual outcome and 2) simply favors those with political power.
it seems like it would be an almost certain downfall. however the uk hasn't died yet. i would expect them to go first before us. however we can go the opposite direction of the uk and potentially save ourselves. i think removing lifelong welfare and things of that nature will create more drive, adversity and create more determined people or at least people more well versed in survival.
i have said before in another thread that the onus of living in america is that americans take survival for granted, but should shoulder the alternate burden of making the world better. better is always subjective, but perhaps only some should hold it as a life goal to make the world better and others should just be relegated to survive.
How do you inspire people to be more "aware" and to care about what's going on? I'm not sure.
well you would need education for that, but education isn't for everyone. understanding of politics isn't for everyone. elitism is a natural state of affairs. like all things related to fairness, you don't want that elitism to be abused or be used in an abussive manner. that's what the government tries to accomplish and what democracy would hope to achieve.
the previous criticisms of democracy stand though, once people figure out they can vote themselves bread and circuses they will. it's always got to be a balancing act, not even just between two poles but between probably 20.
Part of the reason we are are a republic is to protect any small group from the whims of any majority.
Again, this ties back to my post about the 17th Am enabling more true Democratic behavior that enables majority rules behavior. The group that is a net recipient of benefits is getting larger than the group that funds the benefits.
Sure it would - it's called the Fair Tax. Everybody pays it, everyone has buy-in, all adult citizens get to vote.
Again too simple. Never work.
Ideas must be complex with huge capacities to fail, that way government is required to constantly oversee and maintain these ideas and pay themselves huge salaries to do so.
My bottom line philosophy is that basic(primary) education is naturally a social/collective activity.
Being charitable, It's therefore reasonable to allocate a portion of the taxpayers' contribution to education.
You are FREE to DECIDE to be charitable if you have the means.
Don't decide for me.
Each person should pay for their the education of their own kids. I don't know why money should have to come out of MY pocket to pay for anyone else's kids.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 13:16
You are FREE to DECIDE to be charitable if you have the means.
Don't decide for me.
Each person should pay for their the education of their own kids. I don't know why money should have to come out of MY pocket to pay for anyone else's kids.
Because it's for the CHILDREN, you evil teabagging elitist!
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 13:23
Mm. No.
Why do you think people who don't contribute should have any say in how the money is spent? Are you a Communist?
Really so your going to call me a communist and you're the one want to to take peoples right to vote? Voting can not be tied to money or we will have a system where only the rich have a say and its close to that now anyway with the money that gets spent to influence elections. There are more ways to contribute than just money alone. You having money does not make you a better person who should have more rights than someone who does not have money. Your talking class warfare. A lot of men in veterans cemeteries and other patriots who died trying to protect the rights you are supporting removing. Tell you what if they ever did try to take peoples right to vote that is the time you will see a new revolution and it would be justified.
Pat
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 13:25
You are FREE to DECIDE to be charitable if you have the means.
Don't decide for me.
Each person should pay for their the education of their own kids. I don't know why money should have to come out of MY pocket to pay for anyone else's kids.
Some things are more important than the individual. For our country to survive we need an educated workforce. Its in all of our best interest to educate our nations kids the best we can afford. This matter is too important for greed to hold it back. I don't have any kids either but I have no problem with my tax dollars going to education.
Pat
Some things are more important than the individual. For our country to survive we need an educated workforce. Its in all of our best interest to educate our nations kids the best we can afford. This matter is too important for greed to hold it back. I don't have any kids either but I have no problem with my tax dollars going to education.
Pat
Our public education system is a failure of epic proportions.
I have children and would much prefer not to spend my money educating other people's children. I would like to use my money in order to give my children the best education possible, wherever and however I choose to do so.
The gentlemen who wrote our nation's Constitution and it's Bill of Rights did not attend any type of public school funded by money stolen from it's rightful owners.
GeorgiaBoy
06-12-13, 13:39
Each person should pay for their the education of their own kids. I don't know why money should have to come out of MY pocket to pay for anyone else's kids.
The same reason money comes out of YOUR pocket to pay for a bridge that you may never use, but still have the opportunity to do so.
I would love to see how dumb our nation would be if public schooling wasn't available.
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 13:39
Our public education system is a failure of epic proportions.
I have children and would much prefer not to spend my money educating other people's children. I would like to use my money in order to give my children the best education possible, wherever and however I choose to do so.
The gentlemen who wrote our nation's Constitution and it's Bill of Rights did not attend any type of public school funded by money stolen from it's rightful owners.
The system can be improved here in Alaska there are vouchers to allow parents to send their kids outside the public school system. Also even with the system needing help we are a lot better off with it than if we had no option other than just private schools. The reason being is a lot of kids would not go to school at all because their parents could not afford it. That would mean even more ignorance and an even less educated voter base and work force. We need more education not less. Also your tax dollars are not stolen. Part of the reason the middle east is so violent is because such a large portion of the population over there is not educated. Its easier to get a 18 year old who is un educated and can't read to believe he should strap a bomb to his chest and run into a mall and blow himself up vs an 18 year old who can read and think for himself. Making our country more stupid is not the answer.
Pat
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 13:41
Are you a Communist?
When did you stop beating your wife?
Our public education system is a failure of epic proportions.
I have children and would much prefer not to spend my money educating other people's children. I would like to use my money in order to give my children the best education possible, wherever and however I choose to do so.
The gentlemen who wrote our nation's Constitution and it's Bill of Rights did not attend any type of public school funded by money stolen from it's rightful owners.
it is in many ways a failure. yet many here are a product of it, espousing elitism.
the gentlemen who wrote our constitution, i wonder if they lived in a world where food preparation is outsourced. today just about every family function is outsourced. i don't think they lived in such times. there are so few family units these days. metropolitan geography and modernity and the abundance of options and opportunity costs in the world of today makes "old school" pretty impractical. i'm not saying "old school" isn't good. it's the best. you teach your kid. you put in your kids head what should be there. attention, individualized attention. smaller more cellular distribution of education, it's great. how practical is it? can you do it while you're at work? do both people in the household work? is grandma or grandpa capable of reading and teaching? grandma and grandpa of the next generation is going to be even older than the last since people get married later and later...
but you as a self interested person want more money. bigger house. more gadgets. more time on the internet. more this, more that. who sacrifices for their children? who doesn't put them in day care but instead takes less money in order to be there to teach them all their right things? no instead we outsource our child rearing. we give it to some underpaid public servant who gets seriously tired of it after a year or two. then we take money away from those people but we don't do any better at personally and actively cultivating the children...
sad times for education.
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 13:44
Wait, now we're arguing that our children shouldn't be educated?
WTF?
Yes public schooling has problems, but those problems certainly aren't universal. Districts with rich inhabitants give an education as good as any private school. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The real problem with out education system is higher-education, and the problem isn't quality, it's value.
If Conservatism's answer to our nation's problem is taking away the vote from people we disagree with, and condemning our children to a life of ignorance, than that's going to go over like a lead zeppelin.
Welcome to the wilderness fellas, you'll be there a while.
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 13:45
Because it's for the CHILDREN, you evil teabagging elitist!
Actually its for the country. People don't seem to understand that if the next generation fails we all fail.
Pat
GeorgiaBoy
06-12-13, 13:46
Wait, now we're arguing that our children shouldn't be educated?
WTF?
Yes public schooling has problems, but those problems certainly aren't universal. Districts with rich inhabitants give an education as good as any private school. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The real problem with out education system is higher-education, and the problem isn't quality, it's value.
If Conservatism's answer to our nation's problem is taking away the vote from people we disagree with, and condemning our children to a life of ignorance, than that's going to go over like a lead zeppelin.
Welcome to the wilderness fellas, you'll be there a while.
It's all about the romanticized view of American life pre-1900.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 13:46
When did you stop beating your wife?
Weak sauce.
What else would you call someone who DOES NOT contribute to a pot of money, but thinks they have the right to decide how it's spent? Do you have another word for that?
Oh, I do. Leech. Looter. Thief. Socialist.
Is that enough to get you started?
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 13:47
It's all about the romanticized view of American life pre-1900.
No, it's about NOT stealing things at gunpoint. Which is what you're advocating...but I know you already know that.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 13:49
You were warned once already. What part of knock it off did you not understand?
Voodoochild
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 13:49
Weak sauce.
What else would you call someone who DOES NOT contribute to a pot of money, but thinks they have the right to decide how it's spent? Do you have another word for that?
Oh, I do. Leech. Looter. Thief. Socialist.
Is that enough to get you started?
Some people right wing or left wing simply like to use labels when they are at their wits end in an argument to stir up an emotional response in the people they are arguing with. Lets just stick to the facts and leave the labels out of the thread rather they be calling someone a liberal or a tinfoil head.
Pat
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 13:51
Yep. You ARE a Communist. You just don't call yourself that. Union guy, too, I bet.
:rolleyes:
Thanks for proving my point.
Actually I am a moderate who comes out just right of center on most political tests. You're an elitist (an elitist is an elitist rather they are left or right wing) who thinks only a privileged class should be able to vote and be represented. What do you think we should do next after you take the right to vote? Re-legalize slavery perhaps?
The system can be improved here in Alaska there are vouchers to allow parents to send their kids outside the public school system.
How does that work with someone who wants to homeschool their children? What does a voucher do exactly?
Also even with the system needing help we are a lot better off with it than if we had no option other than just private schools. The reason being is a lot of kids would not go to school at all because their parents could not afford it. That would mean even more ignorance and an even less educated voter base and work force. We need more education not less.
Also your tax dollars are not stolen.
If I come take your money without your permission to use for my own purposes you don't define that as stealing? Also, don't pay and what happens? Ninjas with guns come to take you and your shit away either to jail or you get killed for not paying and cooperating. So, we live under a tax burden with the threat of violence unless we cooperate. Somebody taking my stuff, money included, without permission is defined as stealing.
Making our country more stupid is not the answer.
Pat
Check out the Flynn Effect and Dysgenics. Just a quick search on that will show you some pretty interesting stuff on IQ tests going up 3 points every decade and now scores are actually decreasing... We're getting dumber according to some scientists.
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 13:51
Weak sauce.
I know...it was meant to be.
Apparently the irony is lost on you. You resorted to a classic ad hominem...again. I just gave you a taste of your own drivel.
I recommend you re-read the Constitution, you missed a few key parts. Moreover your understanding of civics is abysmal.
Must be your public school education.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 13:51
Some people right wing or left wing simply like to use labels when they are at their wits end in an argument to stir up an emotional response in the people they are arguing with. Lets just stick to the facts and leave the labels out of the thread rather they be calling someone a liberal or a tinfoil head.
Pat
I repeat: What would you call someone who thinks they have the right to decide how other people's money is spent?
Answer the question.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 13:52
I know...it was meant to be.
Apparently the irony is lost on you. You resorted to a classic ad hominem...again. I just gave you a taste of your own drivel.
I recommend you re-read the Constitution, you missed a few key parts. Moreover your understanding of civics is abysmal.
Must be your public school education.
Ha...I'll put my CV up against yours any day, slick.
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 13:53
Yep. You ARE a Communist. You just don't call yourself that. Union guy, too, I bet.
Yep, you ARE a fascist. You just don't call yourself that. Neo-nazi too I bet.
See how that works? :nono:
Grow up.
Ease up on the senseless arguing guys.
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 13:58
How does that work with someone who wants to homeschool their children? What does a voucher do exactly?
If I come take your money without your permission to use for my own purposes you don't define that as stealing? Also, don't pay and what happens? Ninjas with guns come to take you and your shit away either to jail or you get killed for not paying and cooperating. So, we live under a tax burden with the threat of violence unless we cooperate. Somebody taking my stuff, money included, without permission is defined as stealing.
Check out the Flynn Effect and Dysgenics. Just a quick search on that will show you some pretty interesting stuff on IQ tests going up 3 points every decade and now scores are actually decreasing... We're getting dumber according to some scientists.
You live in the nation you pay taxes. If you disagree with that your free to leave. That is how it works in any country. One way to steal is not paying your taxes. You reap all the benefits from living in the country that costs money.
Taxes are your membership dues. Not exactly sure how the vouchers work but I know a fair number of people hole school their kids and they are able to take advantage of public school resources and activities like sports teams etc. I also believe they get their teaching materials free.
Pat
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 13:58
Ha...I'll put my CV up against yours any day, slick.
I know lots of dipshits with impressive CVs who don't understand shit about the Constitution and civics...see the "dear leader" in the White House.
That you've utterly failed to make a cogent, intellectual point, preferring instead meaningless invective and ad hominems demonstrates the paucity of your intellect.
Some people right wing or left wing simply like to use labels when they are at their wits end in an argument to stir up an emotional response in the people they are arguing with.
You're an elitist (an elitist is an elitist rather they are left or right wing) who thinks only a privileged class should be able to vote and be represented.
Most of those reasons were, racism, sexism and a hatred of the lower class.
:nono:
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 13:59
<crickets>
Let me guess, "I ain't got no college, I went to the School of Hard Knocks, boy!"
Just what I figured. No answers, just stupid "I know you are but what am I?"
:rolleyes:
I know lots of dipshits with impressive CVs who don't understand shit about the Constitution and civics...see the "dear leader" in the White House.
That you've utterly failed to make a cogent, intellectual point, preferring instead meaningless invective and ad hominems demonstrates the paucity of your intellect.
Really burned up Thesaurus.com, didn't you?
Regardless of what you might tell yourself, you did NOT win this, you just got soundly spanked.
GeorgiaBoy
06-12-13, 14:01
C'mon guys... Rein it in a bit...
I repeat: What would you call someone who thinks they have the right to decide how other people's money is spent?
Answer the question.
One way to steal is not paying your taxes.
:happy:
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 14:01
I repeat: What would you call someone who thinks they have the right to decide how other people's money is spent?
Answer the question.
That happens with fascists, monarchist, republics, democracy, socialists, communists etc. All governments are in a situation where they decide how to spend public monies. With respect you need to take a few political science classes or civics classes so you can speak with some intelligence on these issues.
Pat
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 14:03
:nono:
LMFAO!!! well played, sir.
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 14:04
<crickets>
Let me guess, "I ain't got no college, I went to the School of Hard Knocks, boy!"
Really that's the best you can do? Not even close.
That said, tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night.
You're only proving my point and you're not even sharp enough to realize it.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 14:05
Really that's the best you can do? Not even close.
That said, tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night.
You're only proving my point.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
This is like arguing with my 5-year-old nephew.
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 14:07
"I know you are, but what am I?"
This is like arguing with my 5-year-old nephew.
That is so ironic. To me what is more like arguing with a 5 year old is when you get flustered you call them turd face. In your case you use terms like communist. If you think your taking the high road your deceiving yourself. Now lets reign it in like was suggested. We don't have to agree with each other or even like each other but we should treat each other with some respect.
Pat
:rolleyes:
Thanks for proving my point.
Actually I am a moderate who comes out just right of center on most political tests. You're an elitist (an elitist is an elitist rather they are left or right wing) who thinks only a privileged class should be able to vote and be represented.
A republic cannot function if everyone has the right to vote.
Freeloaders voting themselves money out of the public treasury is not a sustainable path. It has nothing to do with giving an elite class the right to vote.
What do you think we should do next after you take the right to vote? Re-legalize slavery perhaps?
You don't have a right to vote.
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 14:09
"I know you are, but what am I?"
This is like arguing with my 5-year-old nephew.
Wow you can dish it out but you sure can't take it.
Irony abounds.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
This is like arguing with my 5-year-old nephew.
Glad you've come to that realization, especially after doing your best to continue the nonsense.
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 14:11
A republic cannot function if everyone has the right to vote.
Freeloaders voting themselves money out of the public treasury is not a sustainable path. It has nothing to do with giving an elite class the right to vote.
You don't have a right to vote.
In a republic everyone has the right to vote for their representatives (hence the term REPublic) and their representatives vote on the actual issues.
A democracy is a system where everyone votes on the individual issues and that is not practical for many reasons.
A republic will fail if you don't represent all the people.
Also I sure as hell do have the right to vote!!
We really should be teaching civics in public school again.
Pat
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 14:13
Freeloaders voting themselves money out of the public treasury is not a sustainable path.
That's a legitimate debate to be had, and I would agree, but you don't solve that by taking away another person's right to vote.
All you'll have accomplished is setting a precedent for someone taking away YOUR right to vote...and they will.
Funny that people never take the time to understand unintended consequences.
This whole thread is a demonstration of that.
Army Chief
06-12-13, 14:15
Check fire.
Where are we headed with this one, gentlemen? It seems we are danger close to ridiculing each other's views in a few places, and you've got to know where that takes us. Nowhere good.
Preview -- with deep breaths -- before posting, please.
AC
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 14:18
That's a legitimate debate to be had, and I would agree, but you don't solve that by taking away another person's right to vote.
All you'll have accomplished is setting a precedent for someone taking away YOUR right to vote...and they will.
Funny that people never take the time to understand unintended consequences.
This whole thread is a demonstration of that.
Agreed.
People on this forum were rightfully upset when there was talk of gun confiscation and many talked about resisting and even taking up arms against the government. That is over your right to own a weapon. Your right to vote is even more important, the most important of all and if someone tries to take my right to vote or that of my neighbor or even those on here whom I disagree with it will be time to fight back. Taking the right to vote is just one step closer to slavery. I think everybody on here values freedom and losing the right to vote means losing your freedom.
Pat
Freeloaders voting themselves money out of the public treasury is not a sustainable path.
We are FULL THROTTLE down that road. I don't see a way to stop that either. The Elites are importing poverty from Mexiwherever to sustain the base of handout hungry voters. :rolleyes:
We are FULL THROTTLE down that road. I don't see a way to stop that either. The Elites are importing poverty from Mexiwherever to sustain the base of handout hungry voters. :rolleyes:
When it gets bad enough the entitlements will begin to dry up, but by then we will all be feeling it much more than we do now.
That's a legitimate debate to be had, and I would agree, but you don't solve that by taking away another person's right to vote.
Then what is your solution to solve it?
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 14:23
Then what is your solution to solve it?
Ride it out and do our best to educate voters. We have gone through a lot worse in our past as a country. This too shall pass.
Pat
Voodoochild
06-12-13, 14:23
Folks AC has warned everyone once already and I have warned individuals more than once. Infractions have been handed out and if I continue to get post reports about this thread I will nuke it and everyone in it that doesn't understand our warnings.
When it gets bad enough the entitlements will begin to dry up, but by then we will all be feeling it much more than we do now.
Every city in America can be like Detroit! Yipppeeeee!! :rolleyes:
montanadave
06-12-13, 14:25
Check fire.
Where are we headed with this one, gentlemen? It seems we are danger close to ridiculing each other's views in a few places, and you've got to know where that takes us. Nowhere good.
Preview -- with deep breaths -- before posting, please.
AC
C'mon, ya know ya wanna!
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/5740/nutcracker.jpg
ETA: Damn, Voodoochild for the win.
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 14:31
Then what is your solution to solve it?
I think we both know that there isn't any easy solution to be had. You wouldn't believe me if I said so, and rightfully so.
We start however with making a strong, simple case, without the distractions of social issues and political demonization.
I firmly believe that if the GOP got away from this whole "We're for liberty and limited government...until we want to look into your email, bedroom, tell you who you can marry" bs, and just made a case for individual liberty, economic prosperity, Federalism (i.e. limited government/taxation) and a strong but restrained national defense...AND MEANT IT. We could start changing minds, it won't happen quickly but it would. I know those were the issues that made me a conservative, and I'm guessing that's true for most here.
I'm tired of the religious right, partisan demagogues, outright ignoramuses and lifelong political hacks, defining my political views.
Army Chief
06-12-13, 14:43
C'mon, ya know ya wanna!
Tempted ...
... but what I really want is for guys to do less "I'm going to straighten out this jackass" posting, and more reading with an attitude of "Giving this guy every the benefit of the doubt, is there any way to reconcile any of his views with my own?"
Truth is, I really hate playing the referee; especially when it is between dueling parties whom I both hold in high regard. Just get along, and make it a point to respect each other.
I ask for nothing more.
AC
montanadave
06-12-13, 14:45
I firmly believe that if the GOP got away from this whole "We're for liberty and limited government...until we want to look into your email, bedroom, tell you who you can marry" bs, and just made a case for individual liberty, economic prosperity, Federalism (i.e. limited government/taxation) and a strong but restrained national defense...AND MEANT IT. We could start changing minds, it won't happen quickly but it would. I know those were the issues that made me a conservative, and I'm guessing that's true for most here.
I'm tired of the religious right, partisan demagogues, outright ignoramuses and lifelong political hacks, defining my political views.
I'll buy that argument.
Thirty-five years ago the GOP decided they'd hitch their wagon to three major constituencies to hold power: fiscal conservatives, national defense hawks, and the Moral Majority crowd.
Well, the fiscal conservatives revealed themselves as complete hypocrites (What's worse than a "tax and spend" Democrat? A "cut tax and still spend" Republican), the defense hawks morphed into a pack of neocon globalist nation-builders (right after they got through destroying them), and the Moral Majority quickly transfigured into a platoon of theocratic morality police.
Triple ungood. And now they're paying the price.
People who unable to govern themselves are incapable of governing themselves.
(Sentence structure cryptic and unclear on purpose. Read the sentence five or six different ways, they are all true.)
You live in the nation you pay taxes. If you disagree with that your free to leave. That is how it works in any country. One way to steal is not paying your taxes. You reap all the benefits from living in the country that costs money.
Taxes are your membership dues. Not exactly sure how the vouchers work but I know a fair number of people hole school their kids and they are able to take advantage of public school resources and activities like sports teams etc. I also believe they get their teaching materials free.
Pat
I'm on my phone now so I apologize for the abbreviated response. Your description doesn't sound any different than the mafia or any other criminal enterprise that forces people to pay for protection.
The problem I have is paying and seeing so many people not pay into the system and reaping the rewards. It gets old paying for other people's lifestyle that's equivalent to your own through hard work.
I grew up in Mississippi. A dear, elderly friend of mine had been an active participant in at least two lynchings. Uncle Joe was a professed Christian and patriot. Once I met the man who killed Medgar Evers. The assassin was a friend of my girlfriend's family. The girlfriend is a medical doctor today. On two occasions I heard dynamite blasts from bombs planted in churches.
Fear that blacks might get the right to vote fueled much of this hatred. So, who decides who votes and who doesn't?
Nelson Mandela was viewed as a terrorist by Margaret Thatcher. Perceptions change.
QuietShootr
06-12-13, 15:09
I grew up in Mississippi. A dear, elderly friend of mine had been an active participant in at least two lynchings. Uncle Joe was a professed Christian and patriot. Once I met the man who killed Medgar Evers. The assassin was a friend of my girlfriend's family. The girlfriend is a medical doctor today. On two occasions I heard dynamite blasts from bombs planted in churches.
Fear that blacks might get the right to vote fueled much of this hatred. So, who decides who votes and who doesn't?
Nelson Mandela was viewed as a terrorist by Margaret Thatcher. Perceptions change.
Nelson Mandela is a terrorist.
**** it, I'm out. I'm not going to play nice, so I'm not going to play.
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 15:37
Nelson Mandela is a terrorist.
**** it, I'm out. I'm not going to play nice, so I'm not going to play.
You really think that?
Pat
montanadave
06-12-13, 15:38
You really think that?
Pat
Let's not pull that thread, eh?
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 15:40
I'm on my phone now so I apologize for the abbreviated response. Your description doesn't sound any different than the mafia or any other criminal enterprise that forces people to pay for protection.
The problem I have is paying and seeing so many people not pay into the system and reaping the rewards. It gets old paying for other people's lifestyle that's equivalent to your own through hard work.
That is a very loose comparison. While its true that all kinds of groups require dues to reap the benefits. You live in the USA and you benefit from police and fire protection, roads and infrastructure, a military to defend us, courts to enforce contracts so you can do commerce in a stable environment. These things all cost money. You are free to leave and go somewhere where they don't collect taxes but frankly your not going to find many places like that and the ones that do you probably would not want to live there as you would be paying protection money to war lords or other local chief tons. I guess you could become a hermit and live in the mountains.
Pat
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 15:42
Let's not pull that thread, eh?
Fair enough I am done responding to him. The ignore list just got bigger. Of course it is ironic he accused me of pot use considering I don't even drink. lol.
Pat
PA PATRIOT
06-12-13, 15:44
Edited to add,
Opinion retracted since this thread is so far off the rails there is no use to continue the discussion.
ForTehNguyen
06-12-13, 18:03
there was a reason why the voting age was 21 back then. When you were 21 you were almost middle aged, life expentancy was what, 45 years old? By 21 you knew how the world worked. Now they lowered the voting age today to 18 and we wonder why absolute trash politicians get elected. Most 18 year olds dont know squat. IMO you shouldnt be able to vote if you dont pay any taxes. Someone that has no skin in the game shouldnt be allowed to vote to get stuff and affect policy. In a Republic you want the best and brightest to go to Washington. You definitely don't get that when you let everyone vote.
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
-Winston Churchill
Not everyone should vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_IG-S1bfE
Alaskapopo
06-12-13, 18:11
there was a reason why the voting age was 21 back then. When you were 21 you were almost middle aged, life expentancy was what, 45 years old? By 21 you knew how the world worked. Now they lowered the voting age today to 18 and we wonder why absolute trash politicians get elected. Most 18 year olds dont know squat. IMO you shouldnt be able to vote if you dont pay any taxes. Someone that has no skin in the game shouldnt be allowed to vote to get stuff and affect policy. In a Republic you want the best and brightest to go to Washington. You definitely don't get that when you let everyone vote.
Not everyone should vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_IG-S1bfE
If you can die for your country at 18 you should be able to vote for or against the people sending you off to die.
Pat
I bet half the people saying it should only be people who pay taxes got a tax return this year.
Moose-Knuckle
06-12-13, 18:54
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/sheople_zpsce7ac626.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/sheople_zpsce7ac626.jpg.html)
Gutshot John
06-12-13, 19:02
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/sheople_zpsce7ac626.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/sheople_zpsce7ac626.jpg.html)
Yep...exactly.
SeriousStudent
06-12-13, 19:26
Remember that time when you were a kid, and Mom and Dad said "Don't make me stop this car?"
Yeah, it's that time.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.