In our fondest dreams ...
Swingman
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.
2. No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay
when they are out of office.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social
Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social
Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go
home and back to work.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional
pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go
home and back to work.
6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in
the same health care system as the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.
7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American
people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
and back to work.
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective
1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with congressmen,
congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go
home and back to work.
Well ... we can dream.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Larry Jaques
<k...@nospam.com> scrawled the following:
I really like that concept. I think the growing trend is toward a
vio^H^H^H overthrow, so I hope they sense it and straighten up, but
I'm not betting any money on the greedy dickheads in office now.
P.S: #6 should say "loses" </nitpick>
--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor
Mark & Juanita
> Congressional Reform Act of 2010
>
> 1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
>
> A. Two Six year Senate terms
> B. Six Two year House terms
> C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
... snip of other good stuff
Yep. Serving in Congress as a career has resulted in a certain group of
people who view their position in leadership as an entitlement and with the
viewpoint that they are our ruling aristocracy. That was never intended.
As someone pointed out in another forum, the founders were brilliant, but
they weren't perfect -- enacting term limits would be in keeping with their
intent.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
LDosser
news:QKmdnRsfm8_neqfW...@supernews.com...
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> Congressional Reform Act of 2010
>>
>> 1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
>>
>> A. Two Six year Senate terms
>> B. Six Two year House terms
>> C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
> ... snip of other good stuff
>
> Yep. Serving in Congress as a career has resulted in a certain group of
> people who view their position in leadership as an entitlement and with
> the
> viewpoint that they are our ruling aristocracy. That was never intended.
> As someone pointed out in another forum, the founders were brilliant, but
> they weren't perfect -- enacting term limits would be in keeping with
> their
> intent.
The current term limits at the Federal level are two, four, six years, and
eight years. Any time the voting public desires to limit someone's term all
they need do is vote for someone else. A President who makes it past his
second election is limited by the constitution to two consecutive terms.
dadiOH
> Congressional Reform Act of 2010
> Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
> Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go
> home and back to work.
Which is why I'd like to see an end to congressional elections. Instead,
draw them by lot like a jury...one term and they are gone.
Yes, that would result in a number of them being thieves and/or dead heads.
No different then now.
Go back to the original concept of a congressional session too; i.e., they
are only in DC for the session, not full time. If they don't want to leave,
shut down the air conditioning :)
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Larry C
>
>
The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
electorate vote during an election.
The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a good
chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote. If more
people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not be as
defined.
It boggles my mind that people do not vote.
Larry C
HeyBub
> Congressional Reform Act of 2010
>
> 1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
>
> A. Two Six year Senate terms
> B. Six Two year House terms
> C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
[snip]
>
>
> Well ... we can dream.
The problem is not the Congress, it's the voters who elected the members. An
approval rating of 23% really says "I don't like 80% of me!" ('Does this
dress make me look fat?')
We don't get the Congress we deserve - we get the Congress we elect.
Larry Jaques
<nos...@hadenough.com> scrawled the following:
>Swingman wrote:
>
>> Congressional Reform Act of 2010
>>
>> 1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
>>
>> A. Two Six year Senate terms
>> B. Six Two year House terms
>> C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
> ... snip of other good stuff
>
> Yep. Serving in Congress as a career has resulted in a certain group of
>people who view their position in leadership as an entitlement and with the
>viewpoint that they are our ruling aristocracy. That was never intended.
>As someone pointed out in another forum, the founders were brilliant, but
>they weren't perfect -- enacting term limits would be in keeping with their
>intent.
We tried that once and the fu^H^Hdickheads overturned our will. That
should have been the day of reckoning for them, don't you think?
<sigh>
Leon
"Larry C" <lawrencena...@verizonnails.net> wrote in message
news:5ZmdnTbXwP3qzKbW...@giganews.com...
You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required to
vote. Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of
voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that you
actually want one of the people running for office.
Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority of
the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a majority
of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with other
candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we
deserve someone we actually want?
Larry Jaques
<lawrencena...@verizonnails.net> scrawled the following:
Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.
I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
I'm entitled. I'm saddened, but I can't blame them for thinking that
their vote doesn't mean squat. In some ways, if everyone who was
wishy-washy voted, more bad guys would win by promising more crap and,
as usual, failing to deliver any of it. (See "Obama's gonna pay my
rent/car payment/utilities" video.)
Leon
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Well ... we can dream.
>
> The problem is not the Congress, it's the voters who elected the members.
> An approval rating of 23% really says "I don't like 80% of me!" ('Does
> this dress make me look fat?')
>
> We don't get the Congress we deserve - we get the Congress we elect.
The problem is "who" gets to vote, and the fact that congress does not have
to get a majority of the registered voters vote.
Elected officials should not win because they simply got a majority of the
vote, they shoud get a majority of the registered voters vote. For example
if there are 10 registered voters, only 3 show up to vote, and all 3 vote
for candidate "A", that is not good enough. Candidate "A" must get 6 or
more votes to win.
Not voting is a vote that the candidates are not wanted and should be cast
aside.
Swingman
> "Larry C"<lawrencena...@verizonnails.net> wrote in message
>> It boggles my mind that people do not vote.
>>
>> Larry C
>
> You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required to
> vote. Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of
> voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that you
> actually want one of the people running for office.
>
> Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority of
> the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a majority
> of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with other
> candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we
> deserve someone we actually want?
Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
the politicians and lobbyist.
This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
Sad, but true.
Leon
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:1vmmj55le2cugi84u...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:11:19 -0500, the infamous "Larry C"
>>
>>It boggles my mind that people do not vote.
>
> Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
> and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
> Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.
> I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
> I'm entitled. I'm saddened, but I can't blame them for thinking that
> their vote doesn't mean squat. In some ways, if everyone who was
> wishy-washy voted, more bad guys would win by promising more crap and,
> as usual, failing to deliver any of it. (See "Obama's gonna pay my
> rent/car payment/utilities" video.)
IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
elect. Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
purpose, don't you think?
Leon
"Swingman" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:8uWdnRGuat4XwqbW...@giganews.com...
>> Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority
>> of
>> the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a
>> majority
>> of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with
>> other
>> candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we
>> deserve someone we actually want?
>
> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
> only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
> the politicians and lobbyist.
>
> This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
> factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
Totally agree!
> Sad, but true.
>
keit...@gmail.com
No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.
> Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
> purpose, don't you think?
No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
your life. Less is better than more.
J. Clarke
But in the meanwhile we're stuck with the people we don't want. The system
you propose would pretty much mean that an incumbent had a lifetime
appointment.
Doug Miller
>
>Elected officials should not win because they simply got a majority of the
>vote, they shoud get a majority of the registered voters vote. For example
>if there are 10 registered voters, only 3 show up to vote, and all 3 vote
>for candidate "A", that is not good enough. Candidate "A" must get 6 or
>more votes to win.
OK, but suppose Candidate A and his opponent B are both chumps, each with
lukewarm support from only one of the ten voters -- but A is *opposed* by all
of the other eight. If the one voter that supports B, and five of the eight
that oppose A, show up and vote for B, he's in, even though he's a chump.
That's actually not as far-fetched as it seems. I think we saw something
similar in the 2008 primaries: Hillary Clinton has very high disapproval
ratings, even among Democrats, and I suspect that a substantial number of the
votes that Obama received were votes against her, not for him. Meanwhile, on
the Republican side, several of the candidates appeared to be nutjobs;
probably many of the votes McCain received were votes against them, not for
him.
>
>Not voting is a vote that the candidates are not wanted and should be cast
>aside.
Better yet, require the choice "None Of The Above" to appear on every ballot.
If NOTA "wins", have another election in which the losing candidates are not
allowed to participate. Repeat until someone wins. Or leave the office vacant.
Larry C
"Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote in message
news:v9CdnVyCQtldw6bW...@giganews.com...
You file a ballot and you vote a blank for that person.
Enough blanks and the candidate may start to wonder. Even more important,
enough blanks and citizens may run against an incumbent thinking they can be
defeated.
IMHO you should always file a ballot, blank them all if you want, but file a
ballot.
Also, people need to educate themselves more about what is going on. I saw
a bumper sticker that read: "Pay more attention or pay more taxes"
Larry C
Doug Miller
>Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
>only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
>the politicians and lobbyist.
I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise
the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to vote.
That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.
I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government handouts.
Neil Brooks
> In article <8uWdnRGuat4XwqbWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...@giganews.com>, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
> >only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
> >the politicians and lobbyist.
>
> I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise
> the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to vote.
> That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.
Don't think they give a shit about that.
One must be inCREDibly uninformed to have no concept of the true
implications of the term "landed gentry."
And/or ... one must simply want to pretend they're running the Bush/
Cheney campaign, and work as hard as humanly possible to disallow
votes from blocs that traditionally comprise Democrats.
Out of curiosity, does the proponent of this not-good-not-new idea
also miss the Good Old Days of ... slavery?
Wow. Astounding.
Google "confirmation bias." Somebody needs to get out more ... and
challenge some of their own fundamental, closely-held positions, from
time to time.
To be crystal clear: these comments are NOT directed at Doug Miller.
Doug Miller
>Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
>and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
>Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.
I've voted in every Presidential election from 1976 on. Only four times has
the candidate I voted for won the election -- and only *one* of those
four times did I really feel good about the vote I cast. Two-thirds of the
time, I've voted for the candidate that I perceived as the lesser of two
evils. The system of primary elections seems to somehow ensure that only
mediocre candidates will receive a major-party nomination.
>I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
>I'm entitled.
Yep. Same here, on both counts.
Swingman
> In article<8uWdnRGuat4XwqbW...@giganews.com>, Swingman<k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
>> only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
>> the politicians and lobbyist.
>
> factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
>
> Sad, but true.
>
> the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to vote.
> That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.
> I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
> net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government handouts.
Nothing to do with my basic premise, which was put back in above, where
it belongs.
I don't like it either, but as with most idealistic concepts, they
simply can't stand up to practicality.
Doug Miller
>On 12/30/2009 8:45 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article<8uWdnRGuat4XwqbW...@giganews.com>,
> Swingman<k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
>>> only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
>>> the politicians and lobbyist.
> >
> > This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
> > factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
> >
> > Sad, but true.
>>
>> I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise
>> the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to
> vote.
>> That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.
>
>> I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
>> net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government handouts.
>
>Nothing to do with my basic premise, which was put back in above, where
>it belongs.
I agree with your basic premise, but not with the proposed remedy. Benjamin
Franklin was once asked how long he thought the republic would endure; he is
reputed to have responded "Until the people discover they can vote themselves
money from the public treasury" -- hence my suggestion.
>
>I don't like it either, but as with most idealistic concepts, they
>simply can't stand up to practicality.
:-)
Swingman
> I agree with your basic premise, but not with the proposed remedy. Benjamin
> Franklin was once asked how long he thought the republic would endure; he is
> reputed to have responded "Until the people discover they can vote themselves
> money from the public treasury" -- hence my suggestion.
Sorry ... my fault. I misread your point. Mea culpa ...
Morris Dovey
> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
> only property owners being able to vote ...
Hmm. And how would you go about determining which partner should be
disenfranchised in a divorce? By their political views?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Doug Miller
>On 12/30/2009 9:47 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> I agree with your basic premise, but not with the proposed remedy. Benjamin
>> Franklin was once asked how long he thought the republic would endure; he is
>> reputed to have responded "Until the people discover they can vote themselves
>> money from the public treasury" -- hence my suggestion.
>
>Sorry ... my fault. I misread your point. Mea culpa ...
>
Swingman
> On 12/30/2009 8:11 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
>> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
>> only property owners being able to vote ...
>
> Hmm. And how would you go about determining which partner should be
> disenfranchised in a divorce? By their political views?
Women should not be ... errr, never mind. :)
BTW, women automatically get the house in a divorce! Problem solved. <g>
Mike Marlow
<keit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9c95bb1-d8de-41a5...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
> any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
> opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.
>
Nice of you to presume the priviledge of deciding why other people do
things. Too bad you are not as wise as you believe yourself to be. You
might consider asking people who don't vote, why they don't. BTW - what is
an educated opinion? One that matches yours?
>> Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
>> purpose, don't you think?
> No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
> purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
> your life. Less is better than more.
It most certainly can defeat the purpose. This has been demonstrated time
and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same,
regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
J. Clarke
I'd like to see three options on every ballot for every office--"none of the
above", "shoot them all", and "abolish the office".
keit...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <keith...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b9c95bb1-d8de-41a5...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
> > any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
> > opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.
>
> Nice of you to presume the priviledge of deciding why other people do
> things. Too bad you are not as wise as you believe yourself to be. You
> might consider asking people who don't vote, why they don't. BTW - what is
> an educated opinion? One that matches yours?
What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.
> >> Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
> >> purpose, don't you think?
> > No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
> > purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
> > your life. Less is better than more.
>
> It most certainly can defeat the purpose. This has been demonstrated time
> and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same,
> regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.
Nonsense. You propose that things can never be worse.
What an ass.
Robatoy
> On 12/30/2009 10:14 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> > On 12/30/2009 8:11 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
> >> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
> >> only property owners being able to vote ...
>
> > Hmm. And how would you go about determining which partner should be
> > disenfranchised in a divorce? By their political views?
>
> Women should not be ... errr, never mind. :)
>
> BTW, women automatically get the house in a divorce! Problem solved. <g>
>
BTDT
It's the latest pick-up line in a bar: "Hello gorgeous, can I buy you
a house?"
DGDevin
"Larry C" <lawrencena...@verizonnails.net> wrote in message
news:5ZmdnTbXwP3qzKbW...@giganews.com...
> (snip)
>>
> The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
> electorate vote during an election.
>
> The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a
> good chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote.
> If more people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not
> be as defined.
>
> It boggles my mind that people do not vote.
>
> Larry C
Making voting mandatory is an interesting idea, 32 nations have done so and
two-thirds of them enforce that requirement. Hmmmmm--don't vote and you pay
a substantial fine (pegged to income)--that should get people's attention.
Of course I'd also require that all ballots have a "None of the above"
choice.
DGDevin
"Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote in message
>
> You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required
> to vote.
Some democratic countries (including Australia, Belgium, Switzerland,
Mexico, Argentina and Greece) have a similar requirement, and it seems to
work quite well for them.
BTW, have you noticed how few actual Communist countries there are left?
> Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of
> voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that
> you actually want one of the people running for office.
All you have to do is deliberately spoil your ballot and you vote for
nobody, or there could be a "None of the above" choice.
Mandatory voting would be a modest infringement on our liberty, but it would
serve such a compelling public interest that IMO it would be worth it.
DGDevin
> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
> only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
> the politicians and lobbyist.
>
> This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
> factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
>
> Sad, but true.
Bull, giving political power only to those with wealth is repugnant, you
couldn't come up with something that would make politicians and lobbyists
happier. The ability of the people to throw morons and crooks out of office
is one of the few things that keep the bastards in line.
Are you going to tell a youth who volunteers to risk his life serving his
country in uniform that he doesn't get to vote because he doesn't have any
property? If the mill closes and people lose their jobs and their homes
should that result in them losing the vote? Do you seriously propose that
citizens who rent apartments are inherently entitled to fewer rights than
people who own houses?
No offense, but that is one lameass idea.
Rusty
Politician is one of the best paying jobs
"Swingman" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rvCdnVB7M8TePafW...@giganews.com...
> Congressional Reform Act of 2010
>
> 1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
>
> A. Two Six year Senate terms
> B. Six Two year House terms
> C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
>
> Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
> Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home
> and back to work.
>
SNIP
Larry Jaques
<lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> scrawled the following:
It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
<sigh>
--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor
DGDevin
"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:hhfp3b$e56$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
So if through no fault of yours you can no longer work (say due to illness)
and you receive public assistance, you would no longer be allowed to vote?
That strikes me as pointlessly unfair.
How about the right to vote being contingent on passing a modest current
affairs test? If you can't provide one-paragraph outlines of four out of
seven major municipal issues and outline the positions of the candidates for
mayor and city council then you can't vote (instead you're required to spend
the day helping at a polling place or doing some other work of value to the
community--say picking up trash in the park with a sign on your back that
you're too ignorant to vote). At least then your eligibility is determined
by something you have control over. Citizens not able to communicate in
English would get *one* pass on that and be able to take the test in Spanish
or whatever--but in four years they test in English or they don't vote.
Naturally provisions would be made for the illiterate, the blind et al.
However I'd also make voting mandatory, so those who can't be bothered to
acquaint themselves with the issues to a reasonable degree would still have
to give up a day of public service--intentional ignorance would not get them
off the hook.
Swingman
Tell that to your founding fathers, who first instituted the practice.
I didn't say I liked it, I said what the idealism inherent in the "right
to vote for "everyman"" would result in ... in practice it will lead to
the eventual decline of this country.
Look around you ... the country is in decline, it is happening before
your very eyes, although many are too blind or ignorant to see it,
mainly due to the piss poor educational system foisted upon us by the
very concept itself ...
The reluctance to accept it as being at the root of the phenomenon is
understandable, but it will one day be as obvious as the nose on your
face. Count on it.
Again, sad, but true ...
Neil Brooks
> On 12/30/2009 12:27 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Swingman"<k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:8uWdnRGuat4XwqbW...@giganews.com...
>
> >> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
> >> only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
> >> the politicians and lobbyist.
>
> >> This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
> >> factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
>
> >> Sad, but true.
>
> > Bull, giving political power only to those with wealth is repugnant, you
> > couldn't come up with something that would make politicians and lobbyists
> > happier. The ability of the people to throw morons and crooks out of office
> > is one of the few things that keep the bastards in line.
>
> > Are you going to tell a youth who volunteers to risk his life serving his
> > country in uniform that he doesn't get to vote because he doesn't have any
> > property? If the mill closes and people lose their jobs and their homes
> > should that result in them losing the vote? Do you seriously propose that
> > citizens who rent apartments are inherently entitled to fewer rights than
> > people who own houses?
>
> > No offense, but that is one lameass idea.
>
> Tell that to your founding fathers, who first instituted the practice.
You mean ... of course ... the slave-owning founding fathers?
Do you have a calendar handy? Do you realize this is ...
effectively ... 2010??
If you yearn for those times, I can list for you a HOST of emerging
nations whose systems much more closely resemble that of our earliest
days as a nation.
[nothing of relevance snipped]
Tim Daneliuk
+1
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy
I'm still a proponent of proportional representation. I mean, a
district sends a Libtard or a Repuglican to parliament who was elected
with a 1% margin and the other 49% have no representation whatsoever.
There are countries where that seems to work okay. I think Sweden is
one and look what happen to that crop of babes.... waitasec..did my
brain just make a turn?
Tim Daneliuk
> On Dec 30, 7:45 am, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <8uWdnRGuat4XwqbWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...@giganews.com>, Swingman <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
>>> only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
>>> the politicians and lobbyist.
>>
>> I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise
>> the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to vote.
>> That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.
>
> Don't think they give a shit about that.
>
> One must be inCREDibly uninformed to have no concept of the true
> implications of the term "landed gentry."
>
> And/or ... one must simply want to pretend they're running the Bush/
> Cheney campaign, and work as hard as humanly possible to disallow
> votes from blocs that traditionally comprise Democrats.
Uh huh, just like ACORN did to get people like Dear Leader and
Al "The Clown" Franken elected. Election fraud at some slight
level has been with us for decades. It's smaller here than in
other places, but it will never be zero. cf The JFK election.
What is interesting is that in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore,
even the Bush-Haters like the New York Times came to the conclusion
that Bush did, indeed, win FL in 2000. This is unlike the case
of ACORN for where there is overwhelming evidence that they
are lying, cheating, and stealing on a massive repetitive scale.
>
> Out of curiosity, does the proponent of this not-good-not-new idea
> also miss the Good Old Days of ... slavery?
You are deeply confused my friend. The "slaves" today, are the half
the country that are paying taxes so the other half doesn't pay any.
The "slaves" are the business owners that have to go through all kinds
of government regulatory hoops, put their own capital at risk, hire
and fire according to today's PC culture, and then - after 30 years -
be told that they are "rich" and need to pay their "fair share". The
"slaves" today are the people who are being told what to do with their
personal property and their lives to satisfy the tender sensibilities
of whichever group happens to currently occupy power.
I say that the only "revolution" needed is for the half of us that are
productive to go on strike for a few months - the moochers will be
*begging* us to come back and support them. In the mean time we'll
continue to see things like the "Homes For Ho's" programs of Barney
"Ruble" Frank and his ilk destroying our economy, freedom, and future.
>
> Wow. Astounding.
>
> Google "confirmation bias." Somebody needs to get out more ... and
> challenge some of their own fundamental, closely-held positions, from
> time to time.
>
> To be crystal clear: these comments are NOT directed at Doug Miller.
Miller's right: If you don't pay taxes you should have no right to vote
and influence how that money gets spent. The only exception I'd make
is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in the military.
Doug Miller
>
>"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
>news:hhfp3b$e56$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> In article <8uWdnRGuat4XwqbW...@giganews.com>, Swingman
>> <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
>>>only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
>>>the politicians and lobbyist.
>>
>> I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would
>> disenfranchise
>> the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to
>> vote.
>> That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.
>>
>> I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
>> net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government
>> handouts.
>
>So if through no fault of yours you can no longer work (say due to illness)
>and you receive public assistance, you would no longer be allowed to vote?
>That strikes me as pointlessly unfair.
I'd certainly go along with making exceptions for "no fault of your own"
cases, perhaps assessing whether an individual is a net taxpayer or a net
leech on the basis of a five-year moving average. But I don't think that
anyone who is able to work, but simply refuses to, has any claim on either
society's resources or its decision-making processes.
>
>How about the right to vote being contingent on passing a modest current
>affairs test? If you can't provide one-paragraph outlines of four out of
>seven major municipal issues and outline the positions of the candidates for
>mayor and city council then you can't vote (instead you're required to spend
>the day helping at a polling place or doing some other work of value to the
>community--say picking up trash in the park with a sign on your back that
>you're too ignorant to vote). At least then your eligibility is determined
>by something you have control over. Citizens not able to communicate in
>English would get *one* pass on that and be able to take the test in Spanish
>or whatever--but in four years they test in English or they don't vote.
>Naturally provisions would be made for the illiterate, the blind et al.
No argument there at all. I'm in favor of all of that.
>
>However I'd also make voting mandatory, so those who can't be bothered to
>acquaint themselves with the issues to a reasonable degree would still have
>to give up a day of public service--intentional ignorance would not get them
>off the hook.
The first needs to be in place before instituting the second. We have enough
of a problem now with uninformed, ignorant voters without *requiring* them to
vote. Thank goodness that a large number of the uninformed and ignorant are
apathetic as well -- I prefer that those people not vote.
Tim Daneliuk
Since you insist on harping on slavery, let me acquaint you with some
realities of slavery you're conveniently ignoring:
- Slavery in some form has existed in all of recorded human history.
- The slavery that brought Africans to the US was instituted BY Africans
AGAINST Africans long before the Europeans ever showed up.
- African Muslim pirates (the Barbary Corsairs) attacked and enslaved
white Europeans well before the Europeans ever engaged in slavery themselves.
These pirates operated from the 11th century through the 19th by
some accounts.
- Of all major cultures ONLY the Judeo-Christian influenced Westerners
*gave up slavery voluntarily*, whether by internal civil war or
legislative decree.
- One of the two places in the world you can still buy slaves in large
numbers is ... wait for it ... AFRICA. (Somalia and Mauretania to be
exact. The other is the white slavery going on in the Eastern Bloc
and Islamic worlds.)
So, before you get too haughty about the eeeeeeeeeevil Founding
Fathers, you might want to ponder their context and realize that in
less than 100 years after the US was formed as a nation (1776-1865)
slavery was abolished. We got rid of something in a hundred years that
had been going on for 10 *thousand* before. It was EXACTLY because of
the ideals of these people and their fundamental principles of
government that slavery could not and did not survive. Dismissing them
as mere slavers with a corrupt morality utterly misses the point.
So, just why do you and your fellow politically correct travelers leap
at the opportunity to criticize the founders of the US - founders
that led us on a path of freedom for more people, more rapidly than
at any point in history - BUT you're entirely silent about the
millennia of slavery and human rights abuses in Africa and the rest of
the world?
world?
Leon
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:pr-dnZNswp7kBqbW...@earthlink.com...
>
> "Swingman" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:8uWdnRGuat4XwqbW...@giganews.com...
>
>> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
>> only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
>> the politicians and lobbyist.
>>
>> This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
>> factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
>>
>> Sad, but true.
>
> Bull, giving political power only to those with wealth is repugnant, you
> couldn't come up with something that would make politicians and lobbyists
> happier. The ability of the people to throw morons and crooks out of
> office is one of the few things that keep the bastards in line.
Which country are you living in??? I have seen nothing but crooks and
morons for the last 40 years.
Neil Brooks
Eloquent, but ... sadly ... in the end ... pointless.
They also owned slaves. You may say that was "right for their times"
or ... something equivalent, but ... many "knew better," and the
practice was relatively speedily abolished.
The notion that others did it before them, or that it still goes on
elsewhere, likewise, does nothing to the argument.
It's a fools effort to declare that things that were right in 1776 are
therefore automatically right, now.
Leon
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hhfo5...@news5.newsguy.com...
> Leon wrote:
>> "Larry C" <lawrencena...@verizonnails.net> wrote in message
>> news:5ZmdnTbXwP3qzKbW...@giganews.com...
>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the
>>> electorate vote during an election.
>>>
>>> The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they
>>> have a good chance of being reelected because that group will go out
>>> and vote. If more people voted, then the "base" that we always hear
>>> about would not be as defined.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are
>> Voting for the sake of voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think
>> it tells the counters that you actually want one of the people
>> running for office.
>>
>> majority of the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the
>> votes. If a majority of the registered voters don't show up, another
>> election is held with other candidates. Yes this will take time to
>> elect an official but don't we deserve someone we actually want?
>
> But in the meanwhile we're stuck with the people we don't want. The
> system
> you propose would pretty much mean that an incumbent had a lifetime
> appointment.
Like we have not been stuck with people we don't want already..
Because some one is not immediately elected does not mean that the person in
office gets to stay there until he is replaced. He leaves office and the
government maintains until some one is elected.
Leon
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote in message
> news:4M6dnV825b9QwabW...@giganews.com...
>>
>
>> You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required
>> to vote.
>
> Some democratic countries (including Australia, Belgium, Switzerland,
> Mexico, Argentina and Greece) have a similar requirement, and it seems to
> work quite well for them.
The people or the government, seems to work well or what you have read?
>
> BTW, have you noticed how few actual Communist countries there are left?
>
>> Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of
>> voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that
>> you actually want one of the people running for office.
>
> All you have to do is deliberately spoil your ballot and you vote for
> nobody, or there could be a "None of the above" choice.
Actually all you have to do is not vote at all.
> Mandatory voting would be a modest infringement on our liberty, but it
> would serve such a compelling public interest that IMO it would be worth
> it.
Shortly behind that would be those people that make sure you vote they way
they want you to.
Doug Miller
>Miller's right: If you don't pay taxes you should have no right to vote
>and influence how that money gets spent. The only exception I'd make
>is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in the military.
>
I'd make a few more exceptions:
- the severely disabled: as a society, I believe we have a moral obligation to
provide for those who through no fault of their own are unable -- as
distinguished from unwilling -- to provide for themselves, yet that inability
should not disqualify them from voting
- the short-term unemployed: being laid off after years of working shouldn't
cost a person the right to vote
- those who volunteer to serve society in other ways besides the military,
e.g. in hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters for battered women or the homeless,
and so on
- the retired: while those collecting social security may be a net drain
*now*, most of them are certainly a net positive when considered over the
entire span of their working lives
Neil Brooks
> Uh huh, just like ACORN did to get people like Dear Leader and
> Al "The Clown" Franken elected.
It always elevates the rhetoric to begin casting aspersions like that.
> Election fraud at some slight
> level has been with us for decades. It's smaller here than in
> other places, but it will never be zero. cf The JFK election.
I didn't mean that the Right had a monopoly on it, but ... what do you
recall about Database Technologies vis-a-vis the Bush/Gore election.
There clearly WERE some paid-by-the-piece ACORN folk who ripped off
the company, and -- in so doing -- harmed the process.
But I've seen no evidence it was condoned, sanctioned, sponsored, or
directed by the organization. If you recall the Database Technologies
story, then you'll know the same can't be said of that whole
situation.
> What is interesting is that in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore,
> even the Bush-Haters like the New York Times came to the conclusion
> that Bush did, indeed, win FL in 2000.
That doesn't address the issue of how.
> This is unlike the case
> of ACORN for where there is overwhelming evidence that they
> are lying, cheating, and stealing on a massive repetitive scale.
I'd be interested in a citation for that. That doesn't comport with
the info that I've seen.
> > Out of curiosity, does the proponent of this not-good-not-new idea
> > also miss the Good Old Days of ... slavery?
>
> You are deeply confused my friend.
Well, thank the Good Lord for what I clearly feel is the imminent
opportunity for YOU to set me straight!!!
> The "slaves" today, are the half
> the country that are paying taxes so the other half doesn't pay any.
> The "slaves" are the business owners that have to go through all kinds
> of government regulatory hoops, put their own capital at risk, hire
> and fire according to today's PC culture, and then - after 30 years -
> be told that they are "rich" and need to pay their "fair share". The
> "slaves" today are the people who are being told what to do with their
> personal property and their lives to satisfy the tender sensibilities
> of whichever group happens to currently occupy power.
Meh. Easily countered bumper-sticker arguments. I'll pass on the
bait, though.
As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
"McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
superfluous :-)
Neil Brooks
Scrap all of that.
How about a minimum IQ standard???
Leon
<keit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9c95bb1-d8de-41a5...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Snip
>
> IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
> elect.
No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.
So you believe that the choices we get every election are the best possible
candidates? ;~) Smirk.
> Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
> purpose, don't you think?
No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
your life. Less is better than more.
Personally I will not vot for either evil... I'll not follow that flock of
sheep.
You don't have to be 100% happy but you should be at least 20% happy with
your pick.
Leon
<keit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cde0aa9-f57f-4fc0...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.
With that comment, would you please not vote any more?
Neil Brooks
> No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
> any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
> opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.
And where might you propose they GET this education?
Anything short of source documents is pure partisan spin and
commercial crap.
What do you suggest people do -- what most Americans do -- read
NOTHING BUT things that support their partisan pre-conceived ideas of
the world (aka "Confirmation Bias")?
What good does that do?
Leon
>>
>>IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
>>elect. Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
>>purpose, don't you think?
>
> It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
> <sigh>
And to restate what I stated previously, why participate in such an
atrocity.
Leon
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
> Making voting mandatory is an interesting idea, 32 nations have done so
> and two-thirds of them enforce that requirement. Hmmmmm--don't vote and
> you pay a substantial fine (pegged to income)--that should get people's
> attention. Of course I'd also require that all ballots have a "None of the
> above" choice.
I think you would make a good citizen in Iran
keit...@gmail.com
> <keith...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b9c95bb1-d8de-41a5...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Snip
>
>
>
> > IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
> > elect.
>
> No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
> any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
> opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.
<please watch the quoting - not picking on you but rather Google's
interpretation of you>
> So you believe that the choices we get every election are the best possible
> candidates? ;~) Smirk.
This has nothing to do with my point - IOW, a red herring.
> > Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
> > purpose, don't you think?
>
> No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
> purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
> your life. Less is better than more.
>
> Personally I will not vot for either evil... I'll not follow that flock of
> sheep.
So you'll just kibbitz from the sidelines: "Everyone else is wrong,
but me.".
> You don't have to be 100% happy but you should be at least 20% happy with
> your pick.
If you can't find someone to vote for that you're 20% happy with,
perhaps you'd better start looking in a mirror. <Read any way you
choose to>
Leon
> In article <v9CdnVyCQtldw6bW...@giganews.com>, "Leon"
> <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote:
>>
>>Elected officials should not win because they simply got a majority of the
>>vote, they shoud get a majority of the registered voters vote. For
>>example
>>if there are 10 registered voters, only 3 show up to vote, and all 3 vote
>>for candidate "A", that is not good enough. Candidate "A" must get 6 or
>>more votes to win.
>
> OK, but suppose Candidate A and his opponent B are both chumps, each with
> lukewarm support from only one of the ten voters -- but A is *opposed* by
> all
> of the other eight. If the one voter that supports B, and five of the
> eight
> that oppose A, show up and vote for B, he's in, even though he's a chump.
Trying to keep up with that... ;~) I think if you simply did not vote
unless you wanted a candidate to win... If during that election if neither
A or B won, Candidates C and D would be up and so on untill one got 5 or
votes. Not a fool proof method with out problems but far better than what
we settle for now, IMHO. Remember the candidate had to get more than 50%
of the votes from registered voters. If 49% of registered voters vote
neither candidate wins.
I think that if we had candidates that we actually wanted rather than what
we are present with by each party we may be more inclined to actually go and
vote.
>
> That's actually not as far-fetched as it seems. I think we saw something
> similar in the 2008 primaries: Hillary Clinton has very high disapproval
> ratings, even among Democrats, and I suspect that a substantial number of
> the
> votes that Obama received were votes against her, not for him. Meanwhile,
> on
> the Republican side, several of the candidates appeared to be nutjobs;
> probably many of the votes McCain received were votes against them, not
> for
> him.
>>
>>Not voting is a vote that the candidates are not wanted and should be cast
>>aside.
>
> Better yet, require the choice "None Of The Above" to appear on every
> ballot.
> If NOTA "wins", have another election in which the losing candidates are
> not
> allowed to participate. Repeat until someone wins. Or leave the office
> vacant.
There, you have my idea. I would go for that too.
Morris Dovey
> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept
> of only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that
> piss off the politicians and lobbyist.
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but
the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to
take it from them but to inform their discretion."
...Thomas Jefferson
Sorry, Swing, but I'm with Jefferson on this one - I'm more inclined to
believe that the best thing we can do is to take all steps necessary to
ensure a well-educated and well-informed electorate.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Daneliuk
The Democrats would be through it you did that :P
Tim Daneliuk
'seems fair enough.
Tim Daneliuk
> On Dec 30, 12:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
>> Uh huh, just like ACORN did to get people like Dear Leader and
>> Al "The Clown" Franken elected.
>
> It always elevates the rhetoric to begin casting aspersions like that.
Go review the MN election. Without the ACORN distortions, Franken
loses.
>
>> Election fraud at some slight
>> level has been with us for decades. It's smaller here than in
>> other places, but it will never be zero. cf The JFK election.
>
> I didn't mean that the Right had a monopoly on it, but ... what do you
> recall about Database Technologies vis-a-vis the Bush/Gore election.
> There clearly WERE some paid-by-the-piece ACORN folk who ripped off
> the company, and -- in so doing -- harmed the process.
>
> But I've seen no evidence it was condoned, sanctioned, sponsored, or
> directed by the organization. If you recall the Database Technologies
> story, then you'll know the same can't be said of that whole
> situation.
>
>> What is interesting is that in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore,
>> even the Bush-Haters like the New York Times came to the conclusion
>> that Bush did, indeed, win FL in 2000.
>
> That doesn't address the issue of how.
>
>> This is unlike the case
>> of ACORN for where there is overwhelming evidence that they
>> are lying, cheating, and stealing on a massive repetitive scale.
>
> I'd be interested in a citation for that. That doesn't comport with
> the info that I've seen.
I'd be interested in it too. The problem is that what rises to
the necessary level of proof legally is different than what we
can figure out ourselves as common sense. Watching the ACORN
leaders twist and turn as they are assaulted by their right wing
critics makes it clear that ACORN is hiding a lot. They are tap
dancing like crazy not just on the "'Hogate 2009" but on their
voter signup practices. When it smells like poo, it probably is.
>
>>> Out of curiosity, does the proponent of this not-good-not-new idea
>>> also miss the Good Old Days of ... slavery?
>>
>> You are deeply confused my friend.
>
> Well, thank the Good Lord for what I clearly feel is the imminent
> opportunity for YOU to set me straight!!!
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as condescending. I was actually
trying to be sort of friendly ...
>
>> The "slaves" today, are the half
>> the country that are paying taxes so the other half doesn't pay any.
>> The "slaves" are the business owners that have to go through all kinds
>> of government regulatory hoops, put their own capital at risk, hire
>> and fire according to today's PC culture, and then - after 30 years -
>> be told that they are "rich" and need to pay their "fair share". The
>> "slaves" today are the people who are being told what to do with their
>> personal property and their lives to satisfy the tender sensibilities
>> of whichever group happens to currently occupy power.
>
> Meh. Easily countered bumper-sticker arguments. I'll pass on the
> bait, though.
Go ahead, counter them if they are trivial arguments. Explain to me
why it's OK to enslave me for 5 months a year.
>
> As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
> "McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
> superfluous :-)
I liked neither. However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnteeing
that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. I'd even
take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
Republican.)
Doug Miller
>On Dec 30, 1:15=A0pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>> In article <qgms07-gju2....@ozzie.tundraware.com>, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@t=>> >and influence how that money gets spent. =A0The only exception I'd make
>> >is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in the military.
>>
>> I'd make a few more exceptions:
>Scrap all of that.
>
>How about a minimum IQ standard???
Read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould, and I think you'll
reconsider that suggestion. The *only* thing that IQ can be scientifically
demonstrated to measure is performance on IQ tests. Nonetheless, it's been
used in the past as a justification for some horrific acts of discrimination.
Among other things, such discrimination resulted in perhaps millions of deaths
in the first half of the 20th century, when vast numbers of people attempting
to flee the carnage of WWII, and the destruction by deliberate famine of the
Russian peasant class under Stalin[*], were not permitted to enter the United
States because of harsh quotas imposed by the Immigration Restriction Act of
1924, which severely limited the immigration of the supposedly congenitally
intellectually "inferior" eastern and southern Europeans.
[*] "I Chose Freedom" by Viktor Kravchenko is a compelling eyewitness account
of the horrors of Stalinist Russia. [Scribner, New York, 1946]
-MIKE-
Talk about missing the point.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Leon
"Neil Brooks" <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6539dd99-d508-4add...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
You might want to readdress that to Keith, I did not say that.
Leon
<keit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeaf7ff0-9a51-4a16...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> You don't have to be 100% happy but you should be at least 20% happy with
> your pick.
If you can't find someone to vote for that you're 20% happy with,
perhaps you'd better start looking in a mirror. <Read any way you
choose to>
Orrrrr not vote at all..
Doug Miller
>On 12/30/2009 2:15 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <qgms07-...@ozzie.tundraware.com>, Tim Daneliuk
> <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Miller's right: If you don't pay taxes you should have no right to vote
>>> and influence how that money gets spent. The only exception I'd make
>>> is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in the military.
>>>
>> I'd make a few more exceptions:
>>
>> - the severely disabled: as a society, I believe we have a moral obligation to
>> provide for those who through no fault of their own are unable -- as
>> distinguished from unwilling -- to provide for themselves, yet that inability
>> should not disqualify them from voting
>>
>> - the short-term unemployed: being laid off after years of working shouldn't
>> cost a person the right to vote
>>
>> - those who volunteer to serve society in other ways besides the military,
>> e.g. in hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters for battered women or the homeless,
>> and so on
>>
>> - the retired: while those collecting social security may be a net drain
>> *now*, most of them are certainly a net positive when considered over the
>> entire span of their working lives
>
>'seems fair enough.
>
mind.
Tim Daneliuk
And I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that denying the essential
correctness of the Founders' ideas because they happened to live at
a time slavery was "normal", really misses the genius of their contribution.
The fact is that ALL Americans today are victims of slavery in some sense.
We are all paying the bitter harvest of this most evil of practices. But
if we not place this in context by also admiring the 99% that was right
about our founders we end up beating ourselves up needlessly and
thereby miss the essence of American exceptionalism. i.e. We start
to take the modern political left seriously rather than heaping the
scorn upon it, so richly deserved...
Again, I ask: Where is the similar level of outrage against the Islamists
that are this very day buying African slaves? Why is there no hue and cry
directed against the Somalis and Mauretanians for their slaving? If
Jefferson, Madison, et al were wrong for not immediately stopping slavery
after less than 300 years of Western presence in the New World, why are
you not also up in arms about the Barbary Barbarians that predated them
by several hundred years and continued the practice another hundred thereafter?
Methinks there is political agenda here ...
Doug Miller
>On 12/30/2009 8:11 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
>> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept
>> of only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that
>> piss off the politicians and lobbyist.
>
>"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but
>the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to
>exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to
>take it from them but to inform their discretion."
>
>Sorry, Swing, but I'm with Jefferson on this one - I'm more inclined to
>believe that the best thing we can do is to take all steps necessary to
>ensure a well-educated and well-informed electorate.
>
uninformed do not participate in the election process _at all_. Those
conditions are, after all, fairly readily cured -- and with education
compulsory through the age of sixteen, and publicly funded, there's little
excuse for not acquiring at least a minimal understanding of how our economic
and political systems work.
Note "_at all_" in the above: an even more important consideration than
preventing those who are ignorant of our economic and political systems from
voting is preventing them from holding office!
dadiOH
>
>> In article <8uWdnRGuat4XwqbW...@giganews.com>, Swingman
>> <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original
>>> concept of only property owners being able to vote ... but damn
>>> would that piss off the politicians and lobbyist.
>>
>> disenfranchise
>> the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the
>> right to vote.
>> That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.
>>
>> I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being
>> a net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government
>> handouts.
>
> So if through no fault of yours you can no longer work (say due to
> illness) and you receive public assistance, you would no longer be
> allowed to vote? That strikes me as pointlessly unfair.
>
> How about the right to vote being contingent on passing a modest
> current affairs test? If you can't provide one-paragraph outlines of
> four out of seven major municipal issues and outline the positions of
> the candidates for mayor and city council then you can't vote
Hell, lots of the candidates couldn't do that.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Doug Miller
>DGDevin wrote:
>> How about the right to vote being contingent on passing a modest
>> current affairs test? If you can't provide one-paragraph outlines of
>> four out of seven major municipal issues and outline the positions of
>> the candidates for mayor and city council then you can't vote
>
>Hell, lots of the candidates couldn't do that.
And that actually is an even bigger problem....
Swingman
> "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but
> the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to
> take it from them but to inform their discretion."
> ...Thomas Jefferson
>
> Sorry, Swing, but I'm with Jefferson on this one - I'm more inclined to
> believe that the best thing we can do is to take all steps necessary to
> ensure a well-educated and well-informed electorate.
No problem, Morris, and I respect your opinion in particular.
My contention is still that it is a direct result of this (idealistic)
concept that has, demonstrably and observably, insured the very
_absence_ of a well-educated and well-informed electorate.
Looking around, it is difficult to surmise otherwise?
It is a sad state of affairs, IMO.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Neil Brooks
Neil Brooks
> Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as condescending. I was actually
> trying to be sort of friendly ...
Then my apologies -- sincerely.
> >> The "slaves" today, are the half
> >> the country that are paying taxes so the other half doesn't pay any.
> >> The "slaves" are the business owners that have to go through all kinds
> >> of government regulatory hoops, put their own capital at risk, hire
> >> and fire according to today's PC culture, and then - after 30 years -
> >> be told that they are "rich" and need to pay their "fair share". The
> >> "slaves" today are the people who are being told what to do with their
> >> personal property and their lives to satisfy the tender sensibilities
> >> of whichever group happens to currently occupy power.
>
> > Meh. Easily countered bumper-sticker arguments. I'll pass on the
> > bait, though.
>
> Go ahead, counter them if they are trivial arguments. Explain to me
> why it's OK to enslave me for 5 months a year.
Don't point that question at me, Man! It's loaded :-)
[and very much akin to me asking whether or not you've stopped beating
your wife yet.....]
> > As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
> > "McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
> > superfluous :-)
>
> I liked neither. However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnteeing
> that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
> vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. I'd even
> take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
> Republican.)
I wonder how I made it through eight years of GWB without ever calling
him some horrid media-propagated nickname, despite having been
repulsed by virtually everything he ever did as the Leader of the Free
world.
And why those who -- generally -- claim to love this country "more
than all others," and have respect for its institutions feel so
compelled to act like kids when it comes to politicians they dislike?
Chosen One? Messiah? Socialism? Communism? Black president shining
Palin's shoes??
Nobody who ever invokes terms like that ... should ever wonder why
others pay NO attention to politics.
It's because that sort of behavior -- regardless of which side is
using it -- repulses sensible folk.
Now ... to help re-frame your question ....
Why should you pay taxes?
Because the collective good is served -- in some cases, better, and in
some cases, worse -- by the collective dollars spent for the 'general
welfare --' be it roads, safe cars, safe drinking water, an education
system that -- while in need of serious pimping -- is still ranked
highly in the world -- police protection, fire protection, libraries,
(inadequate) regulation that helps to extinguish Social Darwinism
where the strong may pray on the weak, a mighty military, satellite
navigation, etc., etc., etc., etc.
[And ... health care. A sick uneducated work force (worse than it is
now, I mean) is a one way ticket down on the latter of economic world
hegemony for the good old You Ess Of Ayyyy. We WILL be serving
cocktails, in flight, however.]
These things cost money.
In aggregate, these things also play a BIG role in the average
person's perceptions about why this is The Greatest Place In The World
In Which To Live (I like it, but ... would never go that far).
Take away the economic support for those things, and Social Darwinism
really takes hold. A quick peek: the item that taxes pay for, and
what happens when the wealthy are free from subsidizing it:
-Roads? Hell, I'll buy a Hummer
-Schools? I'll send my kids to private
-Water? I buy bottled
-Pesticides? I buy organic. Let THEM eat DDT
-Banking regulation? Hell, _I_ have an MBA and a high-priced lawyer.
F the rest of them
-Police/fire/public safety? I'm RICH and am covered by Sovereign Deed
and on and on and on.
Sounds okay?
Well ... if you're on this ng ... you're likely in the group that's
going to be screwed. Enjoy :-) I'll be your cabin-mate, Neil.
I'm actually a hobbyist woodworker, but ... because of a nagging sinus
infection ... have had to take a slight break from my two shaker-style
mahogany night stands.
I spend little time on this forum because -- like the craft,
generally, I'm guessing -- the demographic is painfully narrow.
Again: confirmation bias.
A bunch of people preening around each other, telling each other what
they already know, and are desperate to hear again (and again and
again).
Challenging our closely-held assumptions ... is a good thing :-)
So is wearing an N95 mask when cutting M&Ts in mahog or dado'ing my
baltic birch plywood ;-)
Cough, cough.... sniff, sniff....
Larry Jaques
<jclarke...@cox.net> scrawled the following:
>Larry C wrote:
>> "Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote in message
>> news:v9CdnVyCQtldw6bW...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> Well ... we can dream.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is not the Congress, it's the voters who elected the
>>>> members. An approval rating of 23% really says "I don't like 80% of
>>>> me!" ('Does this dress make me look fat?')
>>>>
>>>> We don't get the Congress we deserve - we get the Congress we elect.
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is "who" gets to vote, and the fact that congress does
>>> not have to get a majority of the registered voters vote.
>>>
>>> Elected officials should not win because they simply got a majority
>>> of the vote, they shoud get a majority of the registered voters
>>> vote. For example if there are 10 registered voters, only 3 show up
>>> to vote, and all 3 vote for candidate "A", that is not good enough.
>>> Candidate "A" must get 6 or more votes to win.
>>>
>>> Not voting is a vote that the candidates are not wanted and should
>>> be cast aside.
>>>
>>
>> You file a ballot and you vote a blank for that person.
>>
>> Enough blanks and the candidate may start to wonder. Even more
>> important, enough blanks and citizens may run against an incumbent
>> thinking they can be defeated.
>>
>> IMHO you should always file a ballot, blank them all if you want, but
>> file a ballot.
>>
>> Also, people need to educate themselves more about what is going on.
>> I saw a bumper sticker that read: "Pay more attention or pay more
>> taxes"
>
>I'd like to see three options on every ballot for every office--"none of the
>above", "shoot them all", and "abolish the office".
I think I could second that! Bwahahahahaha!
But think, if we abolished all the gov't we didn't actually _need_,
many additional millions would be out of work. I guess, as they've
thought of us, "It's only paeons (gov't workers), so why worry?"
--
It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars.
-- Garrison Keillor
DGDevin
>> No offense, but that is one lameass idea.
>
> Tell that to your founding fathers, who first instituted the practice.
They tolerated slavery too, does that mean it was a bad idea to end the
practice?
> I didn't say I liked it, I said what the idealism inherent in the "right
> to vote for "everyman"" would result in ... in practice it will lead to
> the eventual decline of this country.
>
> Look around you ... the country is in decline, it is happening before your
> very eyes, although many are too blind or ignorant to see it, mainly due
> to the piss poor educational system foisted upon us by the very concept
> itself ...
>
> The reluctance to accept it as being at the root of the phenomenon is
> understandable, but it will one day be as obvious as the nose on your
> face. Count on it.
>
> Again, sad, but true ...
Again, bull. People have been bemoaning the supposed decline of the country
as long as the country has existed, some folks just seem to enjoy
forecasting doom.
DGDevin
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:4B3BADC6...@tundraware.com...
> Since you insist on harping on slavery, let me acquaint you with some
> realities of slavery you're conveniently ignoring:
>
> - Slavery in some form has existed in all of recorded human history.
So what?
> - The slavery that brought Africans to the US was instituted BY Africans
> AGAINST Africans long before the Europeans ever showed up.
So what?
> - African Muslim pirates (the Barbary Corsairs) attacked and enslaved
> white Europeans well before the Europeans ever engaged in slavery
> themselves.
> These pirates operated from the 11th century through the 19th by
> some accounts.
So what?
> - Of all major cultures ONLY the Judeo-Christian influenced Westerners
> *gave up slavery voluntarily*, whether by internal civil war or
> legislative decree.
Good for them.
> - One of the two places in the world you can still buy slaves in large
> numbers is ... wait for it ... AFRICA. (Somalia and Mauretania to be
> exact. The other is the white slavery going on in the Eastern Bloc
> and Islamic worlds.)
So what?
> So, before you get too haughty about the eeeeeeeeeevil Founding
> Fathers,
Are you capable of speaking in anything but slogans? Your posts are
peppered with buzzwords from the rabid-right, can't you function without
borrowing their group-speak?
As for your argument, pointing out that other cultures had slavery too, as
if that's a valid excuse to continue it in America, is a feeble notion.
You've also overlooked that Britain abolished slavery before the United
States, and they managed to do it without the U.S. Constitution, imagine
that.
DGDevin
"Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote in message
>
> Which country are you living in??? I have seen nothing but crooks and
> morons for the last 40 years.
There's no shortage of them, politics seems to have attracted that sort as
far back as history goes, it didn't begin just forty years ago. However it
remains that the crooks and morons being subject to dismissal is a valuable
institution, one I wouldn't care to give up.
Tim Daneliuk
> On Dec 30, 1:48 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>>> As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
>>> "McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
>>> superfluous :-)
>>
>> I liked neither. However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnteeing
>> that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
>> vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. I'd even
>> take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
>> Republican.)
>
> I wonder how I made it through eight years of GWB without ever calling
> him some horrid media-propagated nickname, despite having been
> repulsed by virtually everything he ever did as the Leader of the Free
> world.
I have no personal animus towards the current Prez. I have a loathing
for almost every policy decision AND contempt for those who worship him
as some salvific figure. Hence the term "Messiah".
><SNIP>
>
> Now ... to help re-frame your question ....
>
> Why should you pay taxes?
>
> Because the collective good is served -- in some cases, better, and in
You lost me already at "collective good". More evil has been done
in the name of the "collective" than any other word in human history.
It has been used to justify all manner of mischief, oppression, brutality,
and horror. So, frankly, I am uninterested in the "collective good."
I'm interested in preserving freedom for as many people and in as large
amount as possible. So, by that definition, the only legitimate
use of taxation is to fund the defense of liberty from threats both within-
and without. Everything else is some form of imbalance of liberty where some
pay and some benefit, but the net amount of freedom does not increase (and in
fact is decreased from some people).
The answer is: I should happily pay taxes to defend my freedom. (And I do.)
I should resist - by all legal and ethical means - to see
tax money used for any other purpose because that is stealing.
DGDevin
"Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote in message
>>> You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are
>>> required to vote.
>>
>> Some democratic countries (including Australia, Belgium, Switzerland,
>> Mexico, Argentina and Greece) have a similar requirement, and it seems to
>> work quite well for them.
>
> The people or the government, seems to work well or what you have read?
If voter turnout upward of 85% is a good thing (and I think it is) then I
think mandatory voting works. Of course if you don't like the results of
some elections and you'd rather certain people stayed home on election day
then I see how you'd think it was a bad idea.
>> All you have to do is deliberately spoil your ballot and you vote for
>> nobody, or there could be a "None of the above" choice.
>
> Actually all you have to do is not vote at all.
Sure, if you didn't mind the $1,000.00 fine applied to your property taxes
(or whatever sanction is applied)--be my guest.
>> Mandatory voting would be a modest infringement on our liberty, but it
>> would serve such a compelling public interest that IMO it would be worth
>> it.
>
> Shortly behind that would be those people that make sure you vote they way
> they want you to.
Has that happened in Australia, Belgium, Switzerland etc.? No? Then what
are you moaning about?
Swingman
A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hlbsw3bQy8
Did you think that you would ever see the likes of this in the USA?
Not in delcine, eh?
Now that _is_ "bull"!
Leon
"DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:w-CdnT2tBMNeSabW...@earthlink.com...
>> Shortly behind that would be those people that make sure you vote they
>> way they want you to.
>
> Has that happened in Australia, Belgium, Switzerland etc.? No? Then what
> are you moaning about?
>
I was tininking more in terms of the countries that you left out. The
middle east countires where voter participation is required. Remember
Sadam?
DGDevin
"Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote in message
> IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
> elect. Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
> purpose, don't you think?
Plenty of people don't vote for the same reason they don't pay their child
support, don't show up for work on time, don't go back to school so they can
get a better job, don't stop hanging out with their loser buddies from High
School, don't stop spending all their spare money on dope and strip-bars,
don't fix the dripping tap in the bathroom, don't plan for the future and so
on and so forth--because they're losers who don't give a damn for much of
anything but their immediate gratification. Do we seriously expect such
people to take an interest in politics?
There are also people with poor education and little economic opportunity to
speak of who live paycheck to paycheck. They don't vote because their
parents didn't vote and they see no reason to break with tradition, their
life never seems to get any better just because the other party wins office.
Again, by what miracle should we expect these people to suddenly take a keen
interest in civic affairs? And when someone goes into the inner city (or
depressed rural areas) and registers such folks and helps them get to the
polling place then we hear the sort of arguments recently posted here--such
people shouldn't even be allowed to vote because they're not
property-holders--it's enough to make one wonder if we shouldn't sign the
country back to the British Crown.
DGDevin
"Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote in message
>
> "DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> Making voting mandatory is an interesting idea, 32 nations have done so
>> and two-thirds of them enforce that requirement. Hmmmmm--don't vote and
>> you pay a substantial fine (pegged to income)--that should get people's
>> attention. Of course I'd also require that all ballots have a "None of
>> the above" choice.
>
>
> I think you would make a good citizen in Iran
I think you take yourself and your political views a bit too seriously,
either than or you just enjoy taking a gloomy view of everything. There are
democratic nations that make voting mandatory and they haven't slid into
despotism as you predict, so unclench your teeth a bit sport, you'll hurt
yourself.
DGDevin
"Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote in message
> The problem is "who" gets to vote, and the fact that congress does not
> have to get a majority of the registered voters vote.
>
> Elected officials should not win because they simply got a majority of the
> vote, they shoud get a majority of the registered voters vote. For
> example if there are 10 registered voters, only 3 show up to vote, and all
> 3 vote for candidate "A", that is not good enough. Candidate "A" must get
> 6 or more votes to win.
>
> Not voting is a vote that the candidates are not wanted and should be cast
> aside.
Why do I suspect that if six of the ten registered voters show up and vote
for the candidate you disapprove of that you'd still be pissed-off?
Lee Michaels
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:301220091652408819%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <BOKdncwTF8KSSKbW...@giganews.com>, Swingman> Try looking at Detroit through Google Earth.
>
> It's incredible. Entire blocks with only one house left. Lots of entire
> blocks...
I saw an article recently where farmers are reclaiming industrial land in
Detroit to grow crops. They say it is cheaper to lease the land there than
in farm country.
Tim Daneliuk
> "Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
> news:4B3BADC6...@tundraware.com...
>
>> Since you insist on harping on slavery, let me acquaint you with some
>> realities of slavery you're conveniently ignoring:
>>
>> - Slavery in some form has existed in all of recorded human history.
>
> So what?
>
>> - The slavery that brought Africans to the US was instituted BY Africans
>> AGAINST Africans long before the Europeans ever showed up.
>
> So what?
Europeans were not responsible for the initiation of African slavery
as commonly taught.
>
>> - African Muslim pirates (the Barbary Corsairs) attacked and enslaved
>> white Europeans well before the Europeans ever engaged in slavery
>> themselves.
>> These pirates operated from the 11th century through the 19th by
>> some accounts.
>
> So what?
Africans enslaved Westerners first.
>
>> - Of all major cultures ONLY the Judeo-Christian influenced Westerners
>> *gave up slavery voluntarily*, whether by internal civil war or
>> legislative decree.
>
> Good for them.
Ah, at last some resonance.
>
>> - One of the two places in the world you can still buy slaves in large
>> numbers is ... wait for it ... AFRICA. (Somalia and Mauretania to be
>> exact. The other is the white slavery going on in the Eastern Bloc
>> and Islamic worlds.)
>
> So what?
Why are Europeans held to a different standard of contempt for slavery
(which they rapidly abolished) than Africans that continue the practice
until this very day?
>
>> So, before you get too haughty about the eeeeeeeeeevil Founding
>> Fathers,
>
> Are you capable of speaking in anything but slogans? Your posts are
> peppered with buzzwords from the rabid-right, can't you function without
> borrowing their group-speak?
Can you function in a public context without being dishonest? There is
nothing above that is materially a slogan or cheap shot. It is an
argument built up point-by-point. The fact that it escapes you
is an indication of your limitations, not mine.
>
> As for your argument, pointing out that other cultures had slavery too, as
> if that's a valid excuse to continue it in America, is a feeble notion.
What is feeble is your attempt to recast what I wrote. My point is not
that "other cultures had slavery too" but that they had it for a very
long time and only Western nations under the influence of Judeo-Christianity
abolished it quickly. Yet someone, slavery has become the one argument
that gets used to try to undermine the brilliance and greatness of
the American Framers.
> You've also overlooked that Britain abolished slavery before the United
> States, and they managed to do it without the U.S. Constitution, imagine
> that.
I've "overlooked" no such thing. But you see, this conversation was
in the context of US law and history. Britain's history on the matter
is irrelevant to the discussion at hand - much like your entire post.
Doug Miller
>On Dec 30, 1:51=A0pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>
>> >Scrap all of that.
>>
>> >How about a minimum IQ standard???
>>
>> Read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould, and I think you'll
>> reconsider that suggestion. The *only* thing that IQ can be scientifically
>> demonstrated to measure is performance on IQ tests. Nonetheless, it's been
>> used in the past as a justification for some horrific acts of discrimination.
>> Among other things, such discrimination resulted in perhaps millions of deaths
>> in the first half of the 20th century, when vast numbers of people attempting
>> to flee the carnage of WWII, and the destruction by deliberate famine of the
>> Russian peasant class under Stalin[*], were not permitted to enter the United
>> States because of harsh quotas imposed by the Immigration Restriction Act of
>> 1924, which severely limited the immigration of the supposedly congenitally
>> intellectually "inferior" eastern and southern Europeans.
>>
>> [*] "I Chose Freedom" by Viktor Kravchenko is a compelling eyewitness account
>> of the horrors of Stalinist Russia. [Scribner, New York, 1946]
>
>Mine was sarcasm ;-)
I guess I missed that.
Mike Marlow
<keit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cde0aa9-f57f-4fc0...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 30, 10:53 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@windstream.net>
wrote:
> <keith...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b9c95bb1-d8de-41a5...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
>>> any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
>>> opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.
>
> What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
> should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
> allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
> they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
> don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.
Reference your very words above, which I had quoted in my reply. You very
clearly state the reason people don't vote. You further state that they are
often too uninformed therefore should not vote. That is what I called you
on. People vote on what is important to them. That is a very real part of
the voting process. You don't have to like it, but that's life. It's not
yours to decide if that qualifies them to vote, or to state that those who
do not vote are simply too lazy.
> >> Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
> >> purpose, don't you think?
> > No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
> > purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
> > your life. Less is better than more.
>
>> It most certainly can defeat the purpose. This has been demonstrated time
>> and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same,
>> regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.
> Nonsense. You propose that things can never be worse.
I propose no such thing. You need to stop trying to assign thoughts and
motives to other people. You only serve to embarass yourself when you are
wrong.
> What an ass.
You are too transparent. Those who disagree with you must all be asses.
--
-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net
Lew Hodgett
"Dave Balderstone" wrote:
> Try looking at Detroit through Google Earth.
>
> It's incredible. Entire blocks with only one house left. Lots of
> entire
> blocks...
That's VERY old news.
Came as a direct result of the Detroit race riots of the 60s.
Whitey fled to the burbs in mass leaving a dust trail behind after the
riots.
Ask somebody, "Where you from?", and they would answer "burb name of
choice", never "Detroit".
East side of Cleveland was abandoned in the same way after the 60s
riots there.
Still abandoned when I left 20 years ago.
Lew
CW
"Leon" <lcb1...@swbell.dotnet> wrote in message
>>> Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority
>>> of
>>> the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a
>>> majority
>>> of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with
>>> other
>>> candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we
>>> deserve someone we actually want?
>>
>> Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
>> only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off
>> the politicians and lobbyist.
>>
>> factor in the eventual downfall of this country.
>
>
>
Agreed.
Lew Hodgett
DGDevin wrote:
>> Again, bull. People have been bemoaning the supposed decline of
>> the country
>> as long as the country has existed, some folks just seem to enjoy
>> forecasting doom.
====================================
"Swingman" wrote:
> A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?
=====================================
Unfortunately, much of Detroit is not prepared to fill today's jobs.
Computer related activities seem to be going begging for lack of
available talent.
Computer game programmers, Google, etc, all have openings for
qualified people.
There are lots of economic opportunities, just need to be prepared to
handle them.
Doom and gloom has always been around.
It still remains what it is, total crap.
Lew
LDosser
news:0134e146$0$23229$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Toledo was flooded with goods supposedly stolen during the Dee-troyt riots.
Most of it watches and jewelry recently imported from Japan, with brands
such as Bluvola, Eglin and Ralex.
CW
"Neil Brooks" <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd67188e-713b-4fcf...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 30, 1:15 pm, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <qgms07-gju2....@ozzie.tundraware.com>, Tim Daneliuk
> >Miller's right: If you don't pay taxes you should have no right to vote
> >is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in the military.
>
> I'd make a few more exceptions:
>
> obligation to
> provide for those who through no fault of their own are unable -- as
> distinguished from unwilling -- to provide for themselves, yet that
> inability
> should not disqualify them from voting
>
> - the short-term unemployed: being laid off after years of working
> shouldn't
> cost a person the right to vote
>
> - those who volunteer to serve society in other ways besides the military,
> e.g. in hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters for battered women or the
> homeless,
> and so on
>
> - the retired: while those collecting social security may be a net drain
> *now*, most of them are certainly a net positive when considered over the
> entire span of their working lives
Scrap all of that.
How about a minimum IQ standard???
OK. What would be your standard? I vote for 150.
Neil Brooks
> On 12/30/2009 4:08 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:> On Dec 30, 1:48 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >>> As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
> >>> "McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
> >>> superfluous :-)
>
> >> I liked neither. However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnteeing
> >> that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
> >> vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. I'd even
> >> take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
> >> Republican.)
>
> > I wonder how I made it through eight years of GWB without ever calling
> > him some horrid media-propagated nickname, despite having been
> > repulsed by virtually everything he ever did as the Leader of the Free
> > world.
>
> I have no personal animus towards the current Prez.
Your language says otherwise.
> I have a loathing
> for almost every policy decision AND contempt for those who worship him
> as some salvific figure. Hence the term "Messiah".
Your language says otherwise. If you don't like his supporters, then
demonize them, but -- for a lark -- try doing it like an adult might.
Meanwhile, your schoolyard name-calling (ie, "Messiah") is naught but
silly and puerile.
> ><SNIP>
>
> > Now ... to help re-frame your question ....
>
> > Why should you pay taxes?
>
> > Because the collective good is served -- in some cases, better, and in
>
> You lost me already at "collective good".
That's America. The words "General welfare" mean anything to you??
> More evil has been done
> in the name of the "collective" than any other word in human history.
Then lower yourself to THEIR level by twisting the benevolent meaning
of that phrase ... and/or outlaw religion on the same premise.
Nah. Your argument went "thud" when it fell down.
> It has been used to justify all manner of mischief, oppression, brutality,
> and horror. So, frankly, I am uninterested in the "collective good."
>
> I'm interested in preserving freedom for as many people and in as large
> amount as possible. So, by that definition, the only legitimate
> use of taxation is to fund the defense of liberty from threats both within-
> and without.
Hm. That certainly just sounds like your own vision of the collective
good.
And nobody could EVER get hurt by that worldview, huh? And no
illegitimate wars could EVER be started if that's the deal, right?
Your former argument now has company on the floor.
> Everything else is some form of imbalance of liberty where some
> pay and some benefit, but the net amount of freedom does not increase (and in
> fact is decreased from some people).
Proof by assertion, huh?
And yet ... the elements of "general welfare" that absorb a lot of tax
dollars ARE some of the primary things that Americans crow about when
marketing their nation to ... nobody in particular.
> The answer is: I should happily pay taxes to defend my freedom. (And I do.)
> I should resist - by all legal and ethical means - to see
> tax money used for any other purpose because that is stealing.
Cut a few words, and it'll fit nicely on a bumper sticker.
Neil Brooks
> A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?
As a native of that particular town ... do you also assume that --
after this latest airplane-bomber attempt -- air travel is inherently
unsafe?
Sample size issues, anybody??
Neil Brooks
> "Neil Brooks" <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Scrap all of that.
>
> >How about a minimum IQ standard???
>
> OK. What would be your standard? I vote for 150.
At the risk of being immodest, I'm going to be sucking up all the
coffee and eating the last of the donuts after everybody else has
pushed the bar up as high as they might like.
But ... that's just me ... :-)
I also think it IS a silly way to choose who votes and who doesn't,
and was hoping to indicate how unlikely it was that anybody (certainly
here, but ... generally) was ever going to draw a line that stood ANY
chance of leaving THEM outside of the polling place.
See you at the polls!
Larry Blanchard
> Congressional Reform Act of 2010
>
<snip of some excellent ideas>
I have an even simpler idea which, of course, also doesn't have a
snowballs chance in hell.
One of the big problems is congress/senate members sending pork to their
home state to buy their re-election. So:
All representatives and senators, after their initial election, will have
no choice of venue when running for re-election. They will be randomly
assigned a state/district and must convince the voters of that state to
re-elect them.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Larry Blanchard
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
>> <sigh>
>
>
> And to restate what I stated previously, why participate in such an
> atrocity.
Because it helps keep the *greater* evil out of office :-).