Let's redo the voting requirements.
Gary James
not read their cereal boxes can vote for the people who are to lead our
government.
Considering that any literacy test voting requirement tends to bring
nervous spasms to our more sensitive liberal types, I think Mark Twain
once had an idea which we could and should adopt.
His theory was someting like this: " If any moron can vote once then a
smarter person should get two votes, and a college educated person
should get three".
We've come a long way but unfortunately public education has be in
reverse. So let us discard any notion of education being the key to how
many votes a person gets. There are too many Phd fools running
around. Instead let us use IQ, for we all have one, so what could be
fairer ?
To be totally "fair" let's agree that the average American has an IQ of
100. So we will then give every citizen, over the age of 18 and whose
body is still above room temperature, 5 votes to cast if his/her IQ is
between 95 and 105.
For every ten points in variation a person would win/lose one vote. For
example a person at 115 would gain one to give them 6 votes. 125 would
get 7 and 135 would get 8.
If a person falls to 85, he loses one giving him/her 4 votes. An IQ of
75 would only have 3, and the people with 65, would have two. And even
the 55s who probably can't find the voting booth will have 1 good old
American vote.
That would eliminate all that nasty old racist talk about those racist
voting requirements. And I think it will help "bring us together"
<sniff, sniff> I think I'll take this to the next meeting of the
NAACP. I'll bet they will champion my proposal. I bet I get a stand
"O". And think how Algore and his band of brigands will think of
this.
Gary James
Andy Walton
<cnj...@homemail.com> wrote:
:The biggest trouble a democratic type government is that people who can
:not read their cereal boxes can vote for the people who are to lead our
:government.
In other words, the problem with democracy is that it's democratic. I, for
one, don't see that as a problem.
--
"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or
that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element; I want to know
His thoughts; the rest are details." -- Albert Einstein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Gary James
universal suffrage deplorable. Rome at the height of it's powers had a
very strict voting requirement. At it's fall anyone but women could
vote. So be it with all tyrannies.
GJ
Andy Walton
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (walt horning) wrote:
:i say why not just vote for the nominee with the highest
:iq !!
:
:it sure as hell wouldn't get your smirking,
:moronic piece of scum elected!!
Whether or not IQ measures anything of great importance is an open
question. It certainly does not measure everything important.
George magazine, a few months ago, had a really interesting article in
which historian Richard Reeves ranked the smartest Presidents and the
greatest (where greatest = most effective and important to history)
Presidents of the seven he's known. There was surprisingly little
corellation between the two.
The basic premise of the article was that, even if George W. is a relative
intellectual lightweight, that's not the be-all and end-all of
qualifications for the office. Reeves' lists of the smartest and greatest
follow. He gave reasons for each pick; for his rationale, see
<http://www.georgemag.com/xp6/George/Archives/Feb_March/Cam2000/Features/Bush.xml?body=2>
(you'll probably have to delete a line break in the middle to use that
URL).
The smartest:
1. Bill Clinton
2. Richard Nixon
3. Jimmy Carter
4. George Bush
5. Lyndon Johnson
6. Gerald Ford
7. Ronald Reagan
The greatest:
1. Ronald Reagan
2. Lyndon Johnson
3. Richard Nixon
4. Gerald Ford
5. Bill Clinton
6. George Bush
7. Jimmy Carter
Obviously, IQ (or whatever IQ purports to measure) has critical
weaknesses. It does not measure empathy -- no, not some hippy-dippy
"let's hug" empathy, but the ability to understand someone else's opinion
and seek a common understanding, which is unquestionably a crucial skill
for a political leader. "Social skills" are a crucial part of this. A
President who alienates Congress, not to mention foreign leaders, is not
likely to be an effective chief executive. This is Bill Clinton's greatest
strength, and was Jimmy Carter's greatest weakness. It was also a critical
weakness for Nixon, who made little effort to understand his opponents
before pigeonholing them as "enemies."
Another measure of empathy is understanding that other people are
valuable, value their own lives as much as you value yours, and deserve
the same rights and dignity as you do. Ted Kaczynski is smarter than
anyone reading this message (or the bozo writing it). Ted Bundy was
brilliant, but treated other people as objects. Most serial killers, in
fact, are extremely intelligent -- that's how they get away with their
crimes for so long. It also fuels their elitist beliefs that they matter
and other people don't, which enables them to carve other people up.
IQ does not measure "common sense," the most often misused term in
American politics, but not one that's completely useless. I've known
people who could calculate -- not recite, calculate - pi to ten digits in
their heads, but always had their shoes on the wrong feet. I'd rather have
as president a hog farmer who can see a problem, diagnose it, and fix it
than a genius quantum physicist who can ponder the mysteries of the
universe but has trouble relating his knowledge to people, places or
problems closer to home.
IQ does not measure sheer bull-headed determination, which any successful
businessman or politician will tell you is at least as important as
intelligence. Edison's formula for success was "1% inspiration and 99%
perspiration." We would not have civil rights legislation without Lyndon
Johnson's determination and his good-ol'-boy cred (aided by the aura of
the slain Kennedy); if it's fair to say that "only Nixon could go to
China," it's equally fair to say that "only LBJ could end segregation." Of
course, that same determination led LBJ to hang on to his Vietnam strategy
like a pit bull on a postman's ass.
IQ doesn't measure judgment; specifically, recognizing people smarter than
you, and accepting their advice. FDR was pretty bright, but he was
smartest in choosing his advisors (his "wise men") and knowing when to
take their advice; both in planning the New Deal and picking his generals
in World War II. One of Reeves' comments that I found interesting was (to
the effect) that Kennedy wasn't the smartest President ever, but he and
Ted Sorenson were possibly the smartest combination of a president and a
chief advisor. A reasonably smart guy wo listens to his really smart
friends is a force to be reckoned with.
IQ doesn't measure intuition; not in some psychic sense, but the ability
to size up a situation and understand it immediately. A brilliant man with
a well-trained scientific mind who meticulously considers every variable
will usually reach the same conclusion as an intuitive man who's paying
attention; just a few hours later. Clinton can read a room ina heartbeat.
So could Kennedy, and so could booth Roosevelts.
Most importantly, IQ does not measure moral decency or moral courage -- in
other words, the belief in principles, and the willingness to stand on
those principles, even when it is to your disadvantage to do so.
Unfortunately, the politicians who most exemplify this virtue are more
memorable for the races they lost than for the ones they won. LBJ stood
his ground on civil rights, when he was right, and on Vietnam, when he was
wrong. Reagan's adherence to his principles was often naive and
occasionally illegal, but it was consistent and honest.
Off the top of my head (with "smart" defined along the same lines as IQ,
and "great" defined by effectiveness and historical importance, not by
ideology), George Washington, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and Lyndon
Johnson were great, but not that smart. Bill Clinton, Herbert Hoover, and
Woodrow Wilson were smart but not that great. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham
Lincoln are the only presidents I can think of who were high on both
scales.
The point, at the end of all this verbiage? IQ is a piss-poor means of
picking a leader. It's about as relevant as shoe size. In response to
Gary's point that began the thread, I'd say it's an equally irrelevant
measure of what makes a valuable voter.
--
"The good news is that you're normal. The bad news is that normal is
the one condition there's no treatment for." -- Dr. Laura
Holger Dansk
Walton) wrote:
>The point, at the end of all this verbiage? IQ is a piss-poor means of
>picking a leader. It's about as relevant as shoe size. In response to
>Gary's point that began the thread, I'd say it's an equally irrelevant
>measure of what makes a valuable voter.
Andy, this is absolutely one of the most interesting and informative
post for quite a while in this newsgroup.
Thanks for the information.
Holger
Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new
invention was denounced. The first motor was
considered foolish. The airplane was considered
impossible. The power loom was considered vicious.
Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of
unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they
suffered and they paid. But they won.
Howard Roark, pages 742-743, The Fountainhead
by Ayn Rand
Gary James
high IQ.. And you demolished this strawman with gusto. Now answer the
original premise : would it not be better if smarter people voted for
public officials ? I'll bet if it were possible to add all the IQ
points that voted for Clinton versus those who voted for Bush or Perot,
Slick would have lost. Bad !
GJ
Gary James
high IQ.. And you demolished this strawman with gusto. Now answer the
original premise : would it not be better if smarter people voted for
public officials ? I'll bet if it were possible to add all the IQ
points that voted for Clinton versus those who voted for Bush or Perot,
Slick would have lost. Bad !
GJ
Gary James
high IQ.. And you demolished this strawman with gusto. Now answer the
original premise : would it not be better if smarter people voted for
public officials ? I'll bet if it were possible to add all the IQ
points that voted for Clinton versus those who voted for Bush or Perot,
Slick would have lost. Bad !
GJ
Andy Walton
<cnj...@homemail.com> wrote:
:Especially since we are a Republic and not a Democracy
Ah, this one again.
The United States is not a direct democracy, which is what most people
mean when they say the above. The terms are not mutually exclusive. If you
want to get pedantic about it, the U.S. is a democratic presidential
federal republic.
Democratic = the ultimate power rests with the people. Governments can be
said to be more or less democratic depending on how directly the people's
votes are reflected in public policy. Incidentally, I believe all 50
states have some mechanism for referenda; so it's a republic at the top of
the ballot, and a direct democracy at the bottom of the ballot.
Presidential: the chief executive is elected separately from the
legislature. Most European democracies follow some version of the
"Westminster model," named after the British parliament, in which the
chief executive is the head of the majority party or of the plurality
party in a ruling coalition.
Federal: there is a formal division of power between the national
government and its constitutent parts; the states, in the case of the U.S.
Germany's Laender and Switzerland's Cantons are similar structures in a
similar federal arrangement.
Republic: the vast majority of legislative decisions are made by elected
representatives. This distinguishes the U.S. -- and every modern democracy
-- from the direct democracy of ancient Athens.
:I find universal suffrage deplorable.
Feel free to move. I have yet to see a self-defined elite that has done a
better job.
:Rome at the height of it's powers had a
:very strict voting requirement. At it's fall anyone but women could
:vote.
In the 1950s, adult men seldom appeared in public without hats, income
taxes were far lower. As fedoras have become less common, tax rates have
gone up. Obviously, the way to lower taxes is to start wearing hats again.
It's called post hoc reasoning. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," or "after
this, therefore because of this." I believe the fall of the Roman empire
had more to do with repeated raids from northern Barbarians than with
voting rights.
:So be it with all tyrannies.
Are you saying that universal suffrage = tyrrany? That's turning the
traditional definition on its ear.
--
"...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
-- Thomas Hobbes, who was not, contrary to popular opinion, describing me.
Andy Walton
<cnj...@homemail.com> wrote:
:Somehow you diverted the question to whether a president should have a
:high IQ..
I was responding to a post by walt horning in which he said so. That was
clearly attributed in the post to which you're responding.
:would it not be better if smarter people voted for public officials ?
Obviously. Feel free to organize carpools to bring whomever you consider
"smart" to the polls.
I listed several things that IQ does not measure. All of these things are
valuable in leaders; as I pointed out in my last paragraph, the same
traits go into making an effective and conscientious citizen. IQ is a
worthless measure of what it takes to do either.
Just so you don't have to read the whole long post again, IQ does not
measure empathy, common sense, determination, judgment, intuition, moral
decency, or moral courage. All of which are more important than IQ in
leading or voting.
:I'll bet if it were possible to add all the IQ
:points that voted for Clinton versus those who voted for Bush or Perot,
:Slick would have lost. Bad !
I have no idea on what basis you make that claim. But I do note that you
assume that people who disagree with you are dumber than people who agree
with you -- which makes it screamingly obvious that neither you nor anyone
else should be entrusted with the power to disenfranchise a voter based on
his opinion of the voter's intelligence.
--
"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it
to gnaw through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips
Gary James
Andy Walton wrote:
>
> In article <399EA359...@homemail.com>, Gary James
> <cnj...@homemail.com> wrote:
>
> :Somehow you diverted the question to whether a president should have a
> :high IQ..
>
> I was responding to a post by walt horning in which he said so. That was
> clearly attributed in the post to which you're responding.
>
> :would it not be better if smarter people voted for public officials ?
>
> Obviously. Feel free to organize carpools to bring whomever you consider
> "smart" to the polls.
>
> I listed several things that IQ does not measure. All of these things are
> valuable in leaders; as I pointed out in my last paragraph, the same
> traits go into making an effective and conscientious citizen. IQ is a
> worthless measure of what it takes to do either.
>
> Just so you don't have to read the whole long post again, IQ does not
> measure empathy, common sense, determination, judgment, intuition, moral
> decency, or moral courage. All of which are more important than IQ in
> leading or voting.
>
> :I'll bet if it were possible to add all the IQ
> :points that voted for Clinton versus those who voted for Bush or Perot,
> :Slick would have lost. Bad !
>
> I have no idea on what basis you make that claim. But I do note that you
> assume that people who disagree with you are dumber than people who agree
> with you -- which makes it screamingly obvious that neither you nor anyone
> else should be entrusted with the power to disenfranchise a voter based on
> his opinion of the voter's intelligence.
> --
> "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it
> to gnaw through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
I won't address each item, for we really aren't that far apart, IMO. I
concede everything you say about IQ not measuring certain unmeasurable
qualities. But IQ does measure "capacity" to learn. I realize, for
I've seen it in my life, that a hardworking 95 will do better at school
and work than a lazy 110.
But having said that I still think I'd always bet on the higher IQ in
most areas involving the ability to use acquired knowledge. I won't win
every time but I'll come out in the long run. (Just like betting the
house in Vegas)
Most of my life long acquaintances are in the 110-140 area and although
not all are rich or have important positions, they do seem to have a
better grip on reality than the 75-100 groups I know.
Have a nice evening,
Gary James
myer...@my-deja.com
<atticus-1808...@user-37ka9me.dialup.mindspring.com>,
att...@mindspring.com (Andy Walton) wrote:
> In article <2000081822...@berlin.neuropa.net>,
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (walt horning) wrote:
>
> :i say why not just vote for the nominee with the highest
> :iq !!
> :
> :it sure as hell wouldn't get your smirking,
> :moronic piece of scum elected!!
>
> Whether or not IQ measures anything of great importance is an open
> question. It certainly does not measure everything important.
>
> George magazine, a few months ago, had a really interesting article in
> which historian Richard Reeves ranked the smartest Presidents and the
> greatest (where greatest = most effective and important to history)
> Presidents of the seven he's known. There was surprisingly little
> corellation between the two.
Doesn't sound very scientific. Unless the president's had taken actual
IQ tests, the rankings are useless. Who cares who Reeves thinks is
smartest.
>
> The basic premise of the article was that, even if George W. is a
relative
> intellectual lightweight, that's not the be-all and end-all of
> qualifications for the office. Reeves' lists of the smartest and
greatest
> follow. He gave reasons for each pick; for his rationale, see
>
<http://www.georgemag.com/xp6/George/Archives/Feb_March/Cam2000/Features
/Bush.xml?body=2>
> (you'll probably have to delete a line break in the middle to use that
> URL).
>
> The smartest:
> 1. Bill Clinton
No he's not. Bill Clinton's IQ is not all that high at all.
> 2. Richard Nixon
> 3. Jimmy Carter
> 4. George Bush
> 5. Lyndon Johnson
> 6. Gerald Ford
> 7. Ronald Reagan
>
> The greatest:
> 1. Ronald Reagan
> 2. Lyndon Johnson
> 3. Richard Nixon
> 4. Gerald Ford
> 5. Bill Clinton
> 6. George Bush
> 7. Jimmy Carter
>
> Obviously, IQ (or whatever IQ purports to measure) has critical
> weaknesses. It does not measure empathy -- no, not some hippy-dippy
> "let's hug" empathy, but the ability to understand someone else's
opinion
> and seek a common understanding, which is unquestionably a crucial
skill
> for a political leader. "Social skills" are a crucial part of this.
IQ tests actually do correlate with social skills. To the extent that
social competence is a skill, it is measured by IQ. If you look at
mentally retarded people, who by definition have extremely low IQ's,
they also have extremely weak social skills. Some geniuses may not seem
to have good scoial skills, but most of the time it's because they're
not interested in regular people.
A
> President who alienates Congress, not to mention foreign leaders, is
not
> likely to be an effective chief executive. This is Bill Clinton's
greatest
> strength,
I disagree. If Bill Clinton has such great social skills, why does more
than half the country dislike him (something like a 42% personal
approval rating). Why did he get elected with less than half of
Americans voting for him? I can think of dozens ofcelebrities more
popular than Clinton. No, I'd say Clinton's greatest strength is the
economy. People don't like him, they can see through his lies and
manipulation, but we tolerate him because the economy is going good and
we assume he had something to do with it (even though he probably
didn't).
and was Jimmy Carter's greatest weakness. It was also a
critical
> weakness for Nixon, who made little effort to understand his opponents
> before pigeonholing them as "enemies."
>
> Another measure of empathy is understanding that other people are
> valuable, value their own lives as much as you value yours, and
deserve
> the same rights and dignity as you do. Ted Kaczynski is smarter than
> anyone reading this message (or the bozo writing it). Ted Bundy was
> brilliant, but treated other people as objects. Most serial killers,
in
> fact, are extremely intelligent -- that's how they get away with their
> crimes for so long. It also fuels their elitist beliefs that they
matter
> and other people don't, which enables them to carve other people up.
>
> IQ does not measure "common sense,"
Nonsense. IQ is an excellent measure of common sense.
the most often misused term in
> American politics, but not one that's completely useless. I've known
> people who could calculate -- not recite, calculate - pi to ten digits
in
> their heads, but always had their shoes on the wrong feet.
I'd rather
have
> as president a hog farmer who can see a problem, diagnose it, and fix
it
> than a genius quantum physicist who can ponder the mysteries of the
> universe but has trouble relating his knowledge to people, places or
> problems closer to home.
But a genius quantum physicist would have enough common sense to not
run for president in the first place.
>
> IQ does not measure sheer bull-headed determination,
Agreed.
which any
successful
> businessman or politician will tell you is at least as important as
> intelligence.
Determination is especially important in politics, but business depends
more on brains.
Edison's formula for success was "1% inspiration and 99%
> perspiration." We would not have civil rights legislation without
Lyndon
> Johnson's determination and his good-ol'-boy cred (aided by the aura
of
> the slain Kennedy); if it's fair to say that "only Nixon could go to
> China," it's equally fair to say that "only LBJ could end
segregation." Of
> course, that same determination led LBJ to hang on to his Vietnam
strategy
> like a pit bull on a postman's ass.
>
> IQ doesn't measure judgment; specifically, recognizing people smarter
than
> you, and accepting their advice.
I disagree. Most high IQ people have good judgement, and most people
with IQ's below 70 have such bad judgement they require a social worker
to help them keep out of trouble.
FDR was pretty bright, but he was
> smartest in choosing his advisors (his "wise men") and knowing when to
> take their advice; both in planning the New Deal and picking his
generals
> in World War II. One of Reeves' comments that I found interesting was
(to
> the effect) that Kennedy wasn't the smartest President ever, but he
and
> Ted Sorenson were possibly the smartest combination of a president and
a
> chief advisor. A reasonably smart guy wo listens to his really smart
> friends is a force to be reckoned with.
>
> IQ doesn't measure intuition;
Nonsense
not in some psychic sense, but the
ability
> to size up a situation and understand it immediately. A brilliant man
with
> a well-trained scientific mind who meticulously considers every
variable
> will usually reach the same conclusion as an intuitive man who's
paying
> attention; just a few hours later. Clinton can read a room ina
heartbeat.
> So could Kennedy, and so could booth Roosevelts.
What the hell do you expect? They've been obsessed with politics thier
whole lives. Why wouldn't they get good at it after a while (although
Clinton's lack of popularity tells me he's still not that good at it)
>
> Most importantly, IQ does not measure moral decency or moral courage
-- in
> other words, the belief in principles, and the willingness to stand on
> those principles, even when it is to your disadvantage to do so.
Agreed.
> Unfortunately, the politicians who most exemplify this virtue are more
> memorable for the races they lost than for the ones they won. LBJ
stood
> his ground on civil rights, when he was right, and on Vietnam, when he
was
> wrong. Reagan's adherence to his principles was often naive and
> occasionally illegal, but it was consistent and honest.
>
> Off the top of my head (with "smart" defined along the same lines as
IQ,
> and "great" defined by effectiveness and historical importance, not by
> ideology), George Washington, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, and Lyndon
> Johnson were great, but not that smart. Bill Clinton, Herbert Hoover,
and
> Woodrow Wilson were smart but not that great. Thomas Jefferson and
Abraham
> Lincoln are the only presidents I can think of who were high on both
> scales.
>
> The point, at the end of all this verbiage? IQ is a piss-poor means of
> picking a leader. It's about as relevant as shoe size.
The reason it's not that relevant is because most U.S. presidents had
about the same IQ (give or take 10 points or so). None of them were
total morons, and none of them were geniuses.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Andy Walton
:In article
:<atticus-1808...@user-37ka9me.dialup.mindspring.com>,
: att...@mindspring.com (Andy Walton) wrote:
:> George magazine, a few months ago, had a really interesting article in
:> which historian Richard Reeves ranked the smartest Presidents and the
:> greatest (where greatest = most effective and important to history)
:> Presidents of the seven he's known. There was surprisingly little
:> corellation between the two.
: Doesn't sound very scientific.
That would be why Reeves was billed as a historian, not a scientist.
:Unless the president's had taken actual
:IQ tests, the rankings are useless. Who cares who Reeves thinks is
:smartest.
The publishers of George, and any readers who took interest in the
article. It doesn't prove a damned thing. If it sparks conversation, it's
done morethan enough.
:> 1. Bill Clinton
:
: No he's not. Bill Clinton's IQ is not all that high at all.
Really? You just finished berating Richard Reeves for his conclusions.
When did you administer an IQ test to Bill Clinton? How did he do?
: IQ tests actually do correlate with social skills. To the extent that
:social competence is a skill, it is measured by IQ.
On what basis do you make this claim? If you're saying that smarter people
are invariably more likeable, that won't pass the giggle test.
:If you look at
:mentally retarded people, who by definition have extremely low IQ's,
:they also have extremely weak social skills.
Well, if you look at deformed people, they are generally less well liked
than beautiful people. So Pamela Anderson must be at least as smart as the
homely, unkempt Stephen Hawking, because people seem to like her better.
:Some geniuses may not seem
:to have good scoial skills, but most of the time it's because they're
:not interested in regular people.
Which part of "not interested in regular people" does not sound like a bad
prescription for leaders, or for the voters who choose them?
:> A President who alienates Congress, not to mention foreign leaders, is
:> not likely to be an effective chief executive. This is Bill Clinton's
:> greatest strength,
:
: I disagree. If Bill Clinton has such great social skills, why does more
:than half the country dislike him (something like a 42% personal
:approval rating).
42% seems pretty damned high, all things considered. It's a much higher
rating than Harry Truman left office with.
:Why did he get elected with less than half of
:Americans voting for him?
Because fewer than half of Americans voted. That's the way the system
works. He got more votes than anyone else did.
:I can think of dozens ofcelebrities more popular than Clinton.
Relevance? Are you the press secretary for the Pamela Anderson for
President campaign?
:No, I'd say Clinton's greatest strength is the economy.
He did not get the Democratic nomination in 1992 on the strength of the
economy. He did not win the election over a popular incumbent in 1992 on
the strength of the economy.
:People don't like him, they can see through his lies and
:manipulation, but we tolerate him because the economy is going good and
:we assume he had something to do with it (even though he probably
:didn't).
He had something to do with it -- he had the sense to stay out of the way.
If Clinton were running for a third term, that'd be his strongest slogan
-- "Bill Clinton. He didn't fuck things up too much."
:> IQ does not measure "common sense,"
:
: Nonsense. IQ is an excellent measure of common sense.
Why? On what basis do you make that statement? Your faith in IQ as an
infallible measure of human character is somewhat quaint, but if you can't
back up the claim, I have to wonder about your easily quantifiable little
world. What color is the sky there? Feel free to answer in RGB or CMYK,
decimal or hex.
: I'd rather have
:> as president a hog farmer who can see a problem, diagnose it, and fix
:it
:> than a genius quantum physicist who can ponder the mysteries of the
:> universe but has trouble relating his knowledge to people, places or
:> problems closer to home.
:
: But a genius quantum physicist would have enough common sense to not
:run for president in the first place.
Ah. So we should choose our leaders based exclusively on IQ, but anyone
with a high IQ will not seek the office. I see.
:> IQ does not measure sheer bull-headed determination,
:
: Agreed.
:
:which any
:successful
:> businessman or politician will tell you is at least as important as
:> intelligence.
:
:Determination is especially important in politics, but business depends
:more on brains.
In a word, bullshit. There are thousands of driven individuals with
mediocre intellects who have been successful in business. Name one
brilliant but unmotivated success story.
:> IQ doesn't measure judgment; specifically, recognizing people smarter
:than
:> you, and accepting their advice.
:
: I disagree. Most high IQ people have good judgement, and most people
:with IQ's below 70 have such bad judgement they require a social worker
:to help them keep out of trouble.
If your benchmark is people with IQs below 70, you obviously have not even
the most rudimentary grasp of statistics (which is interesting, since you
seem to evaluate voters and leaders by their stats, as if we were all
baseball players). You're drawing broad conclusions based on people who
are three or four standard deviations off the norm.
There's a vast range between IQ 70 and IQ 140, one definition of "genius."
90+% of the human population is in that range, as have been most of our
presidents.
:> IQ doesn't measure intuition;
:
: Nonsense
There's a compelling argument.
:> The point, at the end of all this verbiage? IQ is a piss-poor means of
:> picking a leader. It's about as relevant as shoe size.
:
:The reason it's not that relevant is because most U.S. presidents had
:about the same IQ (give or take 10 points or so). None of them were
:total morons, and none of them were geniuses.
The overwhelming majority of the human population are neither morons nor
geniuses. If your point was that no one with an IQ below 70 should be
president, you'll get little argument.
--
"I've been down so long that down don't worry me." -- Billie Holiday
myer...@my-deja.com
<atticus-2008...@user-37ka8hm.dialup.mindspring.com>,
Well his SAT scores were released (he did worse than Gore, especially
on the math section). The SAT (especially back when Clinton took it) is
considered an excellent proxy for IQ. It actually correlates as well
with IQ tests, as different IQ tests correlate among themselves. Don't
get me wrong: Clinton isn't dumb, but he's not a genius by any stretch
of the imagination. And I can't imagine what would make anyone that he
is: Apart from getting elected to the highest job in politics, he
doesn't act all that smart, he doesn't talk smart. He doesn't even look
smart.
>
> : IQ tests actually do correlate with social skills. To the extent
that
> :social competence is a skill, it is measured by IQ.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim? If you're saying that smarter
people
> are invariably more likeable, that won't pass the giggle test.
Studies show that IQ is positively correlated with social skills. But
being likeable involves more than just IQ. It also involves personality,
good looks, and speaking voice. But high IQ people are better at
learning information and applying it to new situations. Not just when it
comes to math, but even when it comes to people (although they often
have less interest in learning about people)
>
> :If you look at
> :mentally retarded people, who by definition have extremely low
IQ's,
> :they also have extremely weak social skills.
>
> Well, if you look at deformed people, they are generally less well
liked
> than beautiful people.
But not because they have worse social skills. What this does prove is
that looks play as big a part in popularity as social skills.
So Pamela Anderson must be at least as smart as
the
> homely, unkempt Stephen Hawking, because people seem to like her
better.
>
> :Some geniuses may not seem
> :to have good scoial skills, but most of the time it's because
they're
> :not interested in regular people.
>
> Which part of "not interested in regular people" does not sound like a
bad
> prescription for leaders, or for the voters who choose them?
None. I never claimed we should elect presidents based on IQ. I just
disagree with a lot of your assertions.
>
> :> A President who alienates Congress, not to mention foreign
leaders, is
> :> not likely to be an effective chief executive. This is Bill
Clinton's
> :> greatest strength,
> :
> : I disagree. If Bill Clinton has such great social skills, why does
more
> :than half the country dislike him (something like a 42% personal
> :approval rating).
>
> 42% seems pretty damned high, all things considered.
All things considered. Yeah like considering the fact that his whole
life is politics and he's done nothing but try to charm the American
people for 8 years. Meanwhile Bill Gates has no interest in politics,
and is a total nerd, and yet he has much higher poll numbers than
Clinton. How embarassing.
It's a much
higher
> rating than Harry Truman left office with.
>
> :Why did he get elected with less than half of
> :Americans voting for him?
>
> Because fewer than half of Americans voted.
And why did less than half of Americans vote? Because less than half of
Americans were inspired by him.
That's the way the system
> works. He got more votes than anyone else did.
His competition was a joke. Both times. And in fact, if Ross Perot
hadn't dropped out of the election, Perot would have beat Clinton.
>
> :I can think of dozens ofcelebrities more popular than Clinton.
>
> Relevance? Are you the press secretary for the Pamela Anderson for
> President campaign?
>
> :No, I'd say Clinton's greatest strength is the economy.
>
> He did not get the Democratic nomination in 1992 on the strength of
the
> economy. He did not win the election over a popular incumbent in 1992
on
> the strength of the economy.
>
> :People don't like him, they can see through his lies and
> :manipulation, but we tolerate him because the economy is going good
and
> :we assume he had something to do with it (even though he probably
> :didn't).
>
> He had something to do with it -- he had the sense to stay out of the
way.
Not really. The Republicans were the majority in the house, so
Clinton's powers were extremely limited anyway.
> If Clinton were running for a third term,
He'd lose. 60% of Americans say it's time for him to go. His social
skills are so bad, that people want to get rid of him even with the
great economy!
that'd be his strongest
slogan
> -- "Bill Clinton. He didn't fuck things up too much."
He was too busy fucking Monica up too much.
>
> :> IQ does not measure "common sense,"
> :
> : Nonsense. IQ is an excellent measure of common sense.
>
> Why? On what basis do you make that statement?
IQ correlates with social skills. IQ correlates with how much money
you make (even within the same profession). IQ even predicts how long
you'll live. High IQ people are also less likely to smoke, less likely
to get divorced, less likely to become alcoholics, less likely to have a
racial prejudice, less likely to get hysterical under stress, and less
likely to be in a motor vehicle accident. All of this has been
documented in studies.
I'd say IQ is measuring common sense. It makes sense intuitively too.
What is common sense if not IQ applied to everyday common and practical
situations?
Your faith in IQ as an
> infallible measure of human character is somewhat quaint, but if you
can't
> back up the claim, I have to wonder about your easily quantifiable
little
> world. What color is the sky there? Feel free to answer in RGB or
CMYK,
> decimal or hex.
>
> : I'd rather have
> :> as president a hog farmer who can see a problem, diagnose it, and
fix
> :it
> :> than a genius quantum physicist who can ponder the mysteries of
the
> :> universe but has trouble relating his knowledge to people, places
or
> :> problems closer to home.
> :
> : But a genius quantum physicist would have enough common sense to
not
> :run for president in the first place.
>
> Ah. So we should choose our leaders based exclusively on IQ, but
anyone
> with a high IQ will not seek the office. I see.
When did I say we should choose leaders based exclusively on IQ? I
don't think we have to. The smart people who want the job will naturally
rise to the top. We may not get the smartest president, but we'll get
someone smart enough to do the job. They have lots of high IQ people
working behind the scenes anyway. The president of the United States
government is just a glorified figure head.
>
> :> IQ does not measure sheer bull-headed determination,
> :
> : Agreed.
> :
> :which any
> :successful
> :> businessman or politician will tell you is at least as important
as
> :> intelligence.
> :
> :Determination is especially important in politics, but business
depends
> :more on brains.
>
> In a word, bullshit. There are thousands of driven individuals with
> mediocre intellects who have been successful in business. Name one
> brilliant but unmotivated success story.
You have to be motivated to do just about anything, but people at the
highest levels of business success are almost always extremely
intelligent.
>
> :> IQ doesn't measure judgment; specifically, recognizing people
smarter
> :than
> :> you, and accepting their advice.
> :
> : I disagree. Most high IQ people have good judgement, and most
people
> :with IQ's below 70 have such bad judgement they require a social
worker
> :to help them keep out of trouble.
>
> If your benchmark is people with IQs below 70, you obviously have not
even
> the most rudimentary grasp of statistics (which is interesting, since
you
> seem to evaluate voters and leaders by their stats, as if we were all
> baseball players). You're drawing broad conclusions based on people
who
> are three or four standard deviations off the norm.
Sounds like you're the one with no grasp of statistics. The norm for IQ
is 100, and the standard deviation is 15. 70 is only 2 standard
deviations below the norm. And focusing on extremes is instructive
because they provide the clearest test.
>
> There's a vast range between IQ 70 and IQ 140, one definition of
"genius."
> 90+% of the human population is in that range, as have been most of
our
> presidents.
>
> :> IQ doesn't measure intuition;
> :
> : Nonsense
>
> There's a compelling argument.
If you read about IQ, you'll discover that the entire rational for
judging a person's intelligence by a single number, is a concept called
g. g is simply a factor that explains why all mental abilities are
positively correlated. In one hundred years of research, and thousands
upons thousands of studies, psychologists have not found one single
mental ability that ISN'T correlated with IQ. And intution is a mental
ability.
>
> :> The point, at the end of all this verbiage? IQ is a piss-poor
means of
> :> picking a leader. It's about as relevant as shoe size.
> :
> :The reason it's not that relevant is because most U.S. presidents
had
> :about the same IQ (give or take 10 points or so). None of them were
> :total morons, and none of them were geniuses.
>
> The overwhelming majority of the human population are neither morons
nor
> geniuses. If your point was that no one with an IQ below 70 should be
> president, you'll get little argument.
My point is that the IQ difference between Al Gore and GW Bush is less
than one standard deviation. With a difference that small, who cares
which one is smarter? They're both about the same.
Holger Dansk
> Well his SAT scores were released (he did worse than Gore, especially
>on the math section). The SAT (especially back when Clinton took it) is
>considered an excellent proxy for IQ. It actually correlates as well
>with IQ tests, as different IQ tests correlate among themselves. Don't
>get me wrong: Clinton isn't dumb, but he's not a genius by any stretch
>of the imagination. And I can't imagine what would make anyone that he
>is: Apart from getting elected to the highest job in politics, he
>doesn't act all that smart, he doesn't talk smart. He doesn't even look
>smart.
Well, the thing about Clinton is that he is a liar and crooked and
dishonest. Any test score he made in College or anywhere else I would
always suspect that he cheated.
Holger
If we consider the fact that to this day everything
that makes us civilized beings, every rational value
that we possess -- including the birth of science,
the industrial revolution, the creation of the United
States, even of the structure of our language -- is
the result of Aristotle's influence, of the degree to
which, explicitly or implicitly, men accepted his
epistemological principles, we would have to say:
never have so many owed so much to one man."
Quoted from "For the New Intellectual, HC(20),pb(22)"
from "The Ayn Rand Lexicon", p 35.
Andy Walton
<cnj...@homemail.com> wrote:
:But having said that I still think I'd always bet on the higher IQ in
:most areas involving the ability to use acquired knowledge. I won't win
:every time but I'll come out in the long run. (Just like betting the
:house in Vegas)
But the basic American premise is that individuals count, not aggregates.
A criminal defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not
"probably." Before we deprive Americans of fundamental rights, we need a
stronger justification than that we'll be right most of the time.
Let's take the hypothetical Earl, an honest mechanic with a 90 IQ, not
well-read or up on current affairs, but a wizard with engines by
inclination and experience (I don't actually know such a person, but I
wish I did). He's true to his friends and good to his family, volunteered
for a tour in Vietnam, and pays his bills and his taxes. I couldn't say
that my contribution to society is more valuable than his, or presume that
I know what's good for him, his business and his family better than he
does.
--
"I may be Love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
-- Spike, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Gary James
Andy Walton wrote:
>
> In article <399EFBBC...@homemail.com>, Gary James
> <cnj...@homemail.com> wrote:
>
> :But having said that I still think I'd always bet on the higher IQ in
> :most areas involving the ability to use acquired knowledge. I won't win
> :every time but I'll come out in the long run. (Just like betting the
> :house in Vegas)
>
> But the basic American premise is that individuals count, not aggregates.
> A criminal defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not
> "probably." Before we deprive Americans of fundamental rights, we need a
> stronger justification than that we'll be right most of the time.
I think this discussion does not involve a criminal issue but a civil
issue. That being so, as you well know, then we do not have to reach
the "beyond reasonable doubt" but merely a "preponderance of
evidence". This being 51%.
>
> Let's take the hypothetical Earl, an honest mechanic with a 90 IQ, not
> well-read or up on current affairs, but a wizard with engines by
> inclination and experience (I don't actually know such a person, but I
> wish I did). He's true to his friends and good to his family, volunteered
> for a tour in Vietnam, and pays his bills and his taxes. I couldn't say
> that my contribution to society is more valuable than his, or presume that
> I know what's good for him, his business and his family better than he
> does.
When I was in high school, like most kids, I had a circle of
friends. Among those the IQs ran from 96 to 137. They weren't
suppose to give us or actual scores, but our 'percentile'. "Jeff",
the 96, is the one who figured out how to find our test results.
After high school Jeff wanted to go into real estate and start by
passing the agents test. I could read one chapter (in 30 minutes) of
his text book and answer the questions at least 90%. But it would take
Jeff 2-3 hours each day for a week before he managed to pass the test
(just barely). He had a great personality, was the eternal optimist
and did very well. Within 3 years he had switched to commercial
selling. He got a builders loan and built about 15 houses in a sub
division. When he was 30 he was a millionaire.
My closest friend "John" had an IQ of 137. But he was laid back and
enjoyed his leisure. He loved reading the classics and studying. He
didn't want to go to college, where he would have ended up a
professor. Instead he went to work for the Post Office. He got the
security his personality craved. He married and raised three beautiful
girls who are now grown.
If I ever want advice on real estate I call my friend the millionaire.
But if I want advice or conversation about an abstract idea or the
philosophy of public servants, I always call the mail man.
> --
> "I may be Love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
> -- Spike, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Gary James
bill clinton
Why can't we give everyone a free education? Also, I think some folks
claim the IQ tests are racially biased.
-bill
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:59:36 -0400, Gary James <cnj...@homemail.com>
wrote:
>The biggest trouble a democratic type government is that people who can
>not read their cereal boxes can vote for the people who are to lead our
>government.
>
Gary James
bill clinton wrote:
>
> Why can't we give everyone a free education? Also, I think some folks
> claim the IQ tests are racially biased.
>
> -bill
Ever notice who these people are or what their political agenda is ?
Besides we know education, while lifting them low IQ ers a bit, really
does nothing. When you educate a fool you have an educated fool.
Gary
Gary James
Gary James wrote:
>
> Andy Walton wrote:
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
>
> Gary James
My point in the stories about my two friends is that IQ does cause one
to be an informed voter and the other not. Jeff, the builder, real
estate tycoon has no interest in politics. Except for when a
politician will promise him something that will build his bank
account. Then he is gung-ho. He belongs to every social and
fraternal group that will have him. I think he's in B'nai B'rith if
they take Christians. He is a local democrat but has no use for the
national party, for he can't count any profits from them. The local
guys pass out permits and licenses. And that is what Jeff wants. Just
like poorer low IQs, he asks one simple question : "What's in it for
me"? And if the answer is "nothing", he has no interest. Just like
Maxine Waters and her supporters.
The Postal friend looks at a wider arena. He get's little if anything
(other than his job) from the government or the politicians. So he
always asks in the garbled words of JFK "Ask not what the party can do
for me but for my country". He has naturally voted Republican for the
past 26 years. He is an intelligent man who puts his country first.
His vote is trampled by 10-15 "What's in it for me", low IQ voters.
Another point, high IQ does not equate low "craftiness". Many highly
intelligent doctors can be fooled by crafty, street wise prisoners.
Actually it is almost the daily rule. But the Doctors are busy curing
people and not sitting up nights trying to figure a way to cheat.
Oh well, there are more things in Heaven and Earth,
Horatio..............
Gary
James
jim patterson
clinton) wrote:
>Also, I think some folks
>claim the IQ tests are racially biased.
These 'some folks' think that anything that does not prejudicially
favor them is racially biased.
Arne Langsetmo
Yep. Empathy such as Reagan's "When I was young we didn't have
a race problem." *sheesh* And his welfare mothers driving
Caddillacs. . . .
And remember the "Laffer Curve"? Pays to have a childlike
faith in the correctness of your fantasies. Four trillion
dollars later, we saw the wisdom of Arthur Laffer. I'm
just surprised that the Nobel Committee in Sweden didn't
see it quite the same. But they're known Commies, I guess,
so what do they know. . . .
[snip]
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
> >on the math section). The SAT (especially back when Clinton took it) is
> >considered an excellent proxy for IQ. It actually correlates as well
> >with IQ tests, as different IQ tests correlate among themselves. Don't
> >get me wrong: Clinton isn't dumb, but he's not a genius by any stretch
> >of the imagination. And I can't imagine what would make anyone that he
> >is: Apart from getting elected to the highest job in politics, he
> >doesn't act all that smart, he doesn't talk smart. He doesn't even look
> >smart.
>
> dishonest. Any test score he made in College or anywhere else I would
> always suspect that he cheated.
If you choose to believe that, I can only surmise that _you're_
not a bright as you think you are.
> Holger
>
> If we consider the fact that to this day everything
> that makes us civilized beings, every rational value
> that we possess -- including the birth of science,
> the industrial revolution, the creation of the United
> States, even of the structure of our language -- is
> the result of Aristotle's influence, of the degree to
> which, explicitly or implicitly, men accepted his
> epistemological principles, we would have to say:
> never have so many owed so much to one man."
Things fell because that was their "proper place"?
*sheesh* About as far from a _real_ understanding of
the world as "Let there be light. . . ."
> Quoted from "For the New Intellectual, HC(20),pb(22)"
> from "The Ayn Rand Lexicon", p 35.
A Libertoonarian, eh? Objectivist? No wonder you take
Aristotle over Newton. Objectivism is much more akin
to the former.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Holger Dansk
<zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Well, the thing about Clinton is that he is a liar and crooked and
>> dishonest. Any test score he made in College or anywhere else I would
>> always suspect that he cheated.
>
>If you choose to believe that, I can only surmise that _you're_
>not a bright as you think you are.
Why would you believe someone who lies and lies and lies and does it
under oath to prevent someone else from having their day in court
would tell the truth about other things?
Holger
Affirmative Action
When they kept you out it was because you were black;
when they let you in, it is because you are black.
That's progress?
Marilyn French (b. 1929), U.S. author, critic.
Valerie, in The Women's Room, ch. 4, sct. 19 (1977).
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Holger Dansk <Hol...@Mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:35:21 -0400, Arne Langsetmo
> <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, the thing about Clinton is that he is a liar and crooked and
> >> dishonest. Any test score he made in College or anywhere else I
> >> would always suspect that he cheated.
> >
> >If you choose to believe that, I can only surmise that _you're_
> >not a bright as you think you are.
>
Why do you care about whether Clinton got a blow job? Why
should _anyone_ care, outside of him, his wife, and the person
involved?
> . . . and does
> it under oath to prevent someone else from having their day in
> court . . .
Paula Jones had her day in court. She lost. Big time. You
probably don't know how bad it is to get tossed on a summary
judgement motion.
> . . . would tell the truth about other things?
You have yet to show any evidence that Clinton is less
than forthcoming about anything _except_ what _he_ did
in a private affair that was NOYB. OTOH, your looseness
with the "facts" here bespeaks a less than candid tendency
in you.
CHeers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
sal...@my-deja.com
maturity, humanity or a lot of other important issues.
I have a better idea. Limit the vote, and all political contributions,
to folks who have a job and whose gross income is less than 50% from
interest payments.
Gary James
That's where 95% of vote already is. And you want to dumb it down even
further ?
sal...@my-deja.com
That's 98% of the vote. Unfortunately, it's probably about 20% of the
campaign finance contributions.
Gary James
I'd like to see all voters be tax payers rather than parasites. If this
could be done I would agree we need to limit the freedom of speech and
thereby curtail contributions from special interests.
Gary James
Holger Dansk
>> Why would you believe someone who lies and lies and lies . . .
>
>Why do you care about whether Clinton got a blow job? Why
>should _anyone_ care, outside of him, his wife, and the person
>involved?
It's hard to believe there are so many millions of people like you who
still think that all the dishonesty and lying of Clinton is about
Monica Lewinsky and a sex scandal.
You are missing the boat entirely. That's not what it's about at all.
That was crude and ignorant and redneck and low class but that's not
what this is all about.
>
>> . . . and does
>> it under oath to prevent someone else from having their day in
>> court . . .
>
>Paula Jones had her day in court. She lost. Big time. You
>probably don't know how bad it is to get tossed on a summary
>judgement motion.
>
>> . . . would tell the truth about other things?
>
>You have yet to show any evidence that Clinton is less
>than forthcoming about anything _except_ what _he_ did
>in a private affair that was NOYB. OTOH, your looseness
>with the "facts" here bespeaks a less than candid tendency
>in you.
If you don't know what Willy has done I don't think it would help or
do any good to tell you. :-)
>
>CHeers,
>
> -- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:47:43 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >> Why would you believe someone who lies and lies and lies . . .
> >
> >Why do you care about whether Clinton got a blow job? Why
> >should _anyone_ care, outside of him, his wife, and the person
> >involved?
>
> It's hard to believe there are so many millions of people like you who
> still think that all the dishonesty and lying of Clinton is about
> Monica Lewinsky and a sex scandal.
>
> You are missing the boat entirely. That's not what it's about at all.
> That was crude and ignorant and redneck and low class but that's not
> what this is all about.
What was it all about, then? Perhaps this will refresh your
memory:
"In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
Clinton having sex with local women."
(U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
Note that this was _before_ Lewinsky fell into Starr's lap.
> >> . . . and does
> >> it under oath to prevent someone else from having their day in
> >> court . . .
> >
> >Paula Jones had her day in court. She lost. Big time. You
> >probably don't know how bad it is to get tossed on a summary
> >judgement motion.
> >
> >> . . . would tell the truth about other things?
> >
> >You have yet to show any evidence that Clinton is less
> >than forthcoming about anything _except_ what _he_ did
> >in a private affair that was NOYB. OTOH, your looseness
> >with the "facts" here bespeaks a less than candid tendency
> >in you.
>
> If you don't know what Willy has done I don't think it would help or
> do any good to tell you. :-)
"I have a secret list. . . ." *sheesh*
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Holger Dansk
<zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
> Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
> state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
> affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
> they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
> some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
> consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
> wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
> resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
> Clinton having sex with local women."
>
> (U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
It's not about sex at all.
Andy Walton
<cnj...@homemail.com> wrote:
:Andy Walton wrote:
:>
:> In article <399EFBBC...@homemail.com>, Gary James
:> <cnj...@homemail.com> wrote:
:>
:> But the basic American premise is that individuals count, not aggregates.
:> A criminal defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not
:> "probably." Before we deprive Americans of fundamental rights, we need a
:> stronger justification than that we'll be right most of the time.
:
:I think this discussion does not involve a criminal issue but a civil
:issue. That being so, as you well know, then we do not have to reach
:the "beyond reasonable doubt" but merely a "preponderance of
:evidence". This being 51%.
The courtroom analogy is an imperfect one, since I assume we're not
talking about actually holding hearings for each newly "unqualified" voter
who would be disenfranchised. But since we're talking about one of the
most fundamental rights American citizens possess, I believe the stricter
standard is more appropriate.
--
"Web pages are like babies -- creation involves a level of enthusiasm
that does not necessarily carry over into maintenance." --Joe Chew
myer...@my-deja.com
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> In article <lej3qscpqkgltsoph...@4ax.com>,
> Holger Dansk <Hol...@Mindspring.com> wrote:
> > <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Well, the thing about Clinton is that he is a liar and crooked
and
> > >> dishonest. Any test score he made in College or anywhere else I
> > >> would always suspect that he cheated.
> > >
> > >If you choose to believe that, I can only surmise that _you're_
> > >not a bright as you think you are.
> >
>
> Why do you care about whether Clinton got a blow job? Why
> should _anyone_ care, outside of him, his wife, and the person
> involved?
>
> > it under oath to prevent someone else from having their day in
> > court . . .
>
> Paula Jones had her day in court. She lost. Big time. You
> probably don't know how bad it is to get tossed on a summary
> judgement motion.
That's not the point. The point is he lied under oath. If you had done
the same thing he did, you would be thrown into jail. Why should he be
above the law? Either he should go to jail for what he did, or everyone
who is in jail right now for the same crime should be released. I have
nothing against Clinton, but I don't like double standards.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
myer...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8nu7an$lp1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > In article <lej3qscpqkgltsoph...@4ax.com>,
> > Holger Dansk <Hol...@Mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:35:21 -0400, Arne Langsetmo
> > > <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Well, the thing about Clinton is that he is a liar and crooked
> > > >> and dishonest. Any test score he made in College or anywhere
> > > >> else I would always suspect that he cheated.
> > > >
> > > >If you choose to believe that, I can only surmise that _you're_
> > > >not a bright as you think you are.
> > >
> > > Why would you believe someone who lies and lies and lies . . .
> >
> > Why do you care about whether Clinton got a blow job? Why
> > should _anyone_ care, outside of him, his wife, and the person
> > involved?
> >
> > > . . . and does
> > > it under oath to prevent someone else from having their day in
> > > court . . .
> >
> > Paula Jones had her day in court. She lost. Big time. You
> > probably don't know how bad it is to get tossed on a summary
>
> That's not the point. . . .
It was the _last_ poster's point. He was wrong/
> . . . The point is he lied under oath. . . .
Which (if in fact true) is not a crime. Perhapos you need to
familiarise yourself with the perjury laws. 18. U.S.C. 1621-23.
You might also look at the Kungys, Bronston, and particularly
the Gaudin cases to get an idea of what perjury is.
> . . . If you had done
> the same thing he did, you would be thrown into jail. . . .
Nope. No one gives a damn about me. I have no political
enemies. No one has any interest in splaying my sex life
across the front pages of newspapers coast to coast in order
to embarrass me.
> . . . Why should he be
> above the law? . . .
He's not. But he shouldn't be "below the law" either, just
because you RW wingnuts lost two elections.
> . . .Either he should go to jail for what he did, or
> everyone who is in jail right now for the same crime
> should be released. . . .
Find anyone in halt for the "same crime". Go on. . . .
> . . . I have nothing against Clinton, . . .
Sure, sure, sure.
> . . . but I don't
> like double standards.
Yes, you do. You simply have read the RW pap on this, and
swallowed it whole, so you don't understand that you _do_
in fact hold Clinton to a different standard than everyone
else.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Gary James
I really don't agree. If a civil court can take away a persons property
and livelihood by a simple preponderance of evidence, that should hold
true for other civil matters. The Ghastly Gang on the SCOTUS has ruled
that as long as a persons life nor liberty is in jeopardy the rigid
standard need not apply. But you don't seem concerned about the rights
of individuals and companies (who are citizens under law) when it comes to
taking away their right of free speech.
Gary James
myer...@my-deja.com
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> In article <8nvdik$4ba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> myer...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8nu7an$lp1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > In article <lej3qscpqkgltsoph...@4ax.com>,
> > > Holger Dansk <Hol...@Mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:35:21 -0400, Arne Langsetmo
> > > > <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Well, the thing about Clinton is that he is a liar and
crooked
> > > > >> and dishonest. Any test score he made in College or anywhere
> > > > >> else I would always suspect that he cheated.
> > > > >
> > > > >If you choose to believe that, I can only surmise that _you're_
> > > > >not a bright as you think you are.
> > > >
> > > > Why would you believe someone who lies and lies and lies . . .
> > >
> > > Why do you care about whether Clinton got a blow job? Why
> > > should _anyone_ care, outside of him, his wife, and the person
> > > involved?
> > >
> > > > . . . and does
> > > > it under oath to prevent someone else from having their day in
> > > > court . . .
> > >
> > > Paula Jones had her day in court. She lost. Big time. You
> > > probably don't know how bad it is to get tossed on a summary
> >
> > That's not the point. . . .
>
> It was the _last_ poster's point. He was wrong/
>
> > . . . The point is he lied under oath. . . .
>
> Which (if in fact true) is not a crime. Perhapos you need to
> familiarise yourself with the perjury laws. 18. U.S.C. 1621-23.
Doesn't perjery mean lieing under oath about a fact relevant to your
court case? Doesn't Clinton's affair with a subordinate help establish
the behavior pattern Paula's lawyers were trying to make? Didn't
Clinton, lie about this, under oath?
>
> You might also look at the Kungys, Bronston, and particularly
> the Gaudin cases to get an idea of what perjury is.
>
> > . . . If you had done
> > the same thing he did, you would be thrown into jail. . . .
>
> Nope. No one gives a damn about me. I have no political
> enemies. No one has any interest in splaying my sex life
> across the front pages of newspapers coast to coast in order
> to embarrass me.
Yes but if you were sued for sexual harassment, there would be
questions about your sex life. Questions about whether you had affairs
with people who worked for you, because this meets some legal standards
for sexual harassment. If you lied under oath about this, you would not
get off as easily as Mr Clinton did. We shouldn't have a different legal
standard for celebrities. It should be the same for everyone.
>
> > . . . Why should he be
> > above the law? . . .
>
> He's not. But he shouldn't be "below the law" either, just
> because you RW wingnuts lost two elections.
No he shouldn't be below the law either, and I'm not a right winger
btw.
>
> > . . .Either he should go to jail for what he did, or
> > everyone who is in jail right now for the same crime
> > should be released. . . .
>
> Find anyone in halt for the "same crime". Go on. . . .
Well there were several witnesses in Clinton's hearing who were in jail
for lieing under oath about sex. I have no doubt that perjury, even in a
civil case, can put you behind bars.
>
> > . . . I have nothing against Clinton, . . .
>
> Sure, sure, sure.
No, I honestly have nothing against Clinton. I'm just trying to look at
the case objectively.
Gary James
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> In article <8nvdik$4ba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> myer...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8nu7an$lp1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > In article <lej3qscpqkgltsoph...@4ax.com>,
> > > Holger Dansk <Hol...@Mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:35:21 -0400, Arne Langsetmo
> > > > <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Well, the thing about Clinton is that he is a liar and crooked
> > > > >> and dishonest. Any test score he made in College or anywhere
> > > > >> else I would always suspect that he cheated.
> > > > >
> > > > >If you choose to believe that, I can only surmise that _you're_
> > > > >not a bright as you think you are.
> > > >
> > > > Why would you believe someone who lies and lies and lies . . .
> > >
> > > Why do you care about whether Clinton got a blow job? Why
> > > should _anyone_ care, outside of him, his wife, and the person
> > > involved?
> > >
> > > > . . . and does
> > > > it under oath to prevent someone else from having their day in
> > > > court . . .
> > >
> > > Paula Jones had her day in court. She lost. Big time. You
> > > probably don't know how bad it is to get tossed on a summary
> > > judgement motion. . . .
> >
> > That's not the point. . . .
>
> It was the _last_ poster's point. He was wrong/
>
> > . . . The point is he lied under oath. . . .
>
> Which (if in fact true) is not a crime. Perhapos you need to
> familiarise yourself with the perjury laws. 18. U.S.C. 1621-23.
>
> You might also look at the Kungys, Bronston, and particularly
> the Gaudin cases to get an idea of what perjury is.
>
> > . . . If you had done
> > the same thing he did, you would be thrown into jail. . . .
>
> Nope. No one gives a damn about me. I have no political
> enemies. No one has any interest in splaying my sex life
> across the front pages of newspapers coast to coast in order
> to embarrass me.
>
> > . . . Why should he be
> > above the law? . . .
>
> He's not. But he shouldn't be "below the law" either, just
> because you RW wingnuts lost two elections.
The RW nuts didn't lose any elections. The honest and moral people of
this country lost. To the leftist loonies.
GJ
> <snip>
Andy Walton
Gary James <cnj...@homemail.com> wrote:
Where did that come from? Somehow, because I support voting rights, I'm now
unconcerned about speech rights?
--
"He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see
that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."
-- P. G. Wodehouse, The Code of the Woosters
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
jim patterson
>> . . . If you had done
>> the same thing he did, you would be thrown into jail. . . .
>
>Nope. No one gives a damn about me. I have no political
>enemies. No one has any interest in splaying my sex life
>across the front pages of newspapers coast to coast in order
>to embarrass me.
I'm no Clinton fan.
Didn't and wouldn't vote for him.
His views do not reflect my views which i understand is why we vote
for one candidate over another.
I think he's a pretty slimey, really.
However,
It's always nice when you see your own thoughts reflected in someone
elses words.
This is all history now. But i think, and always have thought that
the rottweiler Starr was on an all stops out smear campaign.
Gary James
Andy Walton wrote:
>
> In article <39A3E225...@homemail.com>,
> Gary James <cnj...@homemail.com> wrote:
>
> >But you don't seem concerned about the rights
> > of individuals and companies (who are citizens under law) when it comes to
> > taking away their right of free speech.
>
> Where did that come from? Somehow, because I support voting rights, I'm now
> unconcerned about speech rights?
No. I believe you probably support freedom of speech. My point (poorly
made) was that wealthy people and corporations also have this right. And
to over come certain media distortions and bias' it is necessary for them
to spend money to get out their message.
My over all feeling about this thread is that if only "informed" citizens
could vote, there would be no use to restrict any ones constitutional
rights.
It bothers me just as much you, knowing our congress and adminstration is
for sale to the highest bidder. But where I think you would agree that
big oil, insurance companies, etc. are evil to the good of the average
citizen, I would also also include civil rights groups and labor groups
in this category.
And I'm not a complete right wing nut. I'm for many things in the Green
party as well as the Sierra club and PETA. I guess I'm a "well rounded "
nut :)
>
> --
> "He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see
> that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."
> -- P. G. Wodehouse, The Code of the Woosters
> Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Gary James
zu...@ix.netcom.com
myer...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8o0kkm$f87$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > In article <8nvdik$4ba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > myer...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8nu7an$lp1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > > In article <lej3qscpqkgltsoph...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Holger Dansk <Hol...@Mindspring.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > > > > Why would you believe someone who lies and lies and lies . . .
> > > >
> > > > Why do you care about whether Clinton got a blow job? Why
> > > > should _anyone_ care, outside of him, his wife, and the person
> > > > involved?
> > > >
> > > > > . . . and does
> > > > > it under oath to prevent someone else from having their day in
> > > > > court . . .
> > > >
> > > > Paula Jones had her day in court. She lost. Big time. You
> > > > probably don't know how bad it is to get tossed on a summary
> > > > judgement motion. . . .
> > >
> > > That's not the point. . . .
> >
> > It was the _last_ poster's point. He was wrong/
> >
> > > . . . The point is he lied under oath. . . .
> >
> > Which (if in fact true) is not a crime. Perhapos you need to
> > familiarise yourself with the perjury laws. 18. U.S.C. 1621-23.
>
> Doesn't perjery mean lieing under oath about a fact relevant to
> your court case? . . .
It has to be a _wilful_ statement about a _material_ fact that
the deponent _believes_ not to be true. If it is false, yet
the deponent believes it to be true, it is not perjury. If
it is not a material fact, it is not perjury. If the deponent
does not do so wilfully, it is not perjury.
Relevancy to the case is not the real measure (although an
irrelevant fact is arguably per se immaterial).
Is that a bit clearer?
> Doesn't Clinton's affair with a subordinate help establish
> the behavior pattern Paula's lawyers were trying to make? . . .
No. In fact, it might well do the opposite, and suggest
that it was likely that Jones's claims of _unwelcome_
advances were false. If it was relevant and admissible,
that is. But see Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 404 for
the admissability of prior conduct. And see Rules 413-415
for the limitations on evidence of other sexual assaults
(which isn't even the case here; Lewinsky was _not_
assaulted).
See also Rule 403 (which Wright mentioned explicitly in
excluding the Lewinsky evidence), and the notes to the
above Rules. These sums up pretty much why we don't
allow free-ranging inquiries into someone's sex life.
It generally isn't relevant, and its use is primarily
to harass ir embarrass a party. Which is _precisely_
what they were doing with it here.
> . . . Didn't
> Clinton, lie about this, under oath?
Did he? Pick a statement you think was perjurious, and
let's see whether it meets the criteria.
> > You might also look at the Kungys, Bronston, and particularly
> > the Gaudin cases to get an idea of what perjury is.
> >
> > > . . . If you had done
> > > the same thing he did, you would be thrown into jail. . . .
> >
> > Nope. No one gives a damn about me. I have no political
> > enemies. No one has any interest in splaying my sex life
> > across the front pages of newspapers coast to coast in order
> > to embarrass me.
>
> Yes but if you were sued for sexual harassment, there would be
> questions about your sex life. . . .
I would hope not. See Rule 404, amd Rule 415.
> . . .Questions about whether you had affairs
> with people who worked for you, because this meets some legal
> standards for sexual harassment.
Huh? Whether you sexually harassed others is not admissible
to show that you sexually harassed the plaintiff (just as
whether you had written bad checks to others wouldn't be
admissible in a civil case to recover damages for a bad
check you wrote). See Rule 404. The exceptions to this
prohibition on such evidence in Rule 415 covers only prior
sexual _assaults_. But that was not true here.
> If you lied under oath about this, you would not
> get off as easily as Mr Clinton did. . . .
You wouldn't be _asked_ this (at least not for the purpose
you suggest here). If I were the defendants' lawyer, I'd
ask that the question be struck as being irrelevant,
and meant to embarrass and humiliate.
And I'm sure that if the Jones case had ever come to trial,
Clinton's lawyers would have done precisely that.
> . . . We shouldn't have a different legal
> standard for celebrities. It should be the same for everyone.
It is. You just don't know it. It is you that have suggested
a different standard exists for celebrities.
> > > . . . Why should he be
> > > above the law? . . .
> >
> > He's not. But he shouldn't be "below the law" either, just
> > because you RW wingnuts lost two elections.
>
> No he shouldn't be below the law either, and I'm not a right winger
> btw.
Then learn something here. Don't take the lies the RW foamers
keep mouthing at face value, and find out the truth for yourself.
> > > . . .Either he should go to jail for what he did, or
> > > everyone who is in jail right now for the same crime
> > > should be released. . . .
> >
> > Find anyone in jain for the "same crime". Go on. . . .
>
> Well there were several witnesses in Clinton's hearing who were
> in jail for lieing under oath about sex.
Lying about the sex that was the very _subject matter_ of the
case. Battalino, the doctor who lied about not having sex with
her patient, had been punished for _having_ sex with her patient
and was being sued for malpractise for having _that_ sex.
Parker had sex with a subordinate after telling the subordinate
that he would only be promoted if he had sex with her, and
the subordinate filed a sexual harassment suit against _her_.
She lied in a deposition about that very sexual liason with the
subordinate.
Find me a case where the alleged lies are about sex with
some one _else_ who has nothing to do with the case at hand.
Good luck.
The Republicans glossed over these little details, _and_ the
Federal Rules of Evidence, when trotting forward these little
examples. Do you wonder _why_?
> . . . I have no doubt that perjury, even in a
> civil case, can put you behind bars.
It can, but the general feeling of even the courts is that
perjury laws are really not the first line of defence
against untruthful testimony.
"Thus, we must read 1621 in light of our own and the
traditional Anglo-American judgment that a prosecution
for perjury is not the sole, or even the primary, safeguard
against errant testimony." Bronston v. U.S., 409 U.S. 352,
360 (1973).
You really should read the whole Bronston case. I note that
the Republicans and Starr pretty much ignored Bronston even
though the President brought it up in their defence
statements ... because it blows a _big_ hole in the story
they were trying to foist off on a less-well-read public
(and Congress). But the case is there and will not go
away in front of a _real_ judge.
In fact, it seems that the most common use of perjury laws
are to imprison people that are "bad" people (e.g., mobsters
and crooked politiicans) when the prosecutors can't find any
real crime to pin on them. In my mind, perjury laws are
pretty stupid, but that's just my opinion.
Parker had the poor luck to be in front of a judge that,
rather than wanting to try the case before him, instead
wanted to use poor Parker to send a message to Washington
in the contemporaneous CLinton investigations. If her case
had come up at a different time, she might well not have
been punished as severely.
> > > . . . I have nothing against Clinton, . . .
> >
> > Sure, sure, sure.
>
> No, I honestly have nothing against Clinton. I'm just trying
> to look at the case objectively.
Then don't believe all the crap you hear from partisans.
Go read the statutes I mentioned, and the cases, guided by
some of the comments I have made here, and make up your _own_
mind.
And when you're done, take another look at which side has been
acting the more honourably here. And go and "do the right
thing". . . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
zu...@ix.netcom.com
p wrote:
[snip]
> I'm no Clinton fan.
> Didn't and wouldn't vote for him.
> His views do not reflect my views which i understand is why we vote
> for one candidate over another.
>
> I think he's a pretty slimey, really.
>
> However,
> It's always nice when you see your own thoughts reflected in someone
> elses words.
>
> This is all history now. But i think, and always have thought that
> the rottweiler Starr was on an all stops out smear campaign.
You got that one right:
"In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
Clinton having sex with local women."
(U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
Long before Lewinsky fell inot his lap, and he went and
asked for permision to panty-sniff.
Tell me, who's shown the more honour and integrity here,
Clinton or his accusers? What would _you_ do if they were
all over you like a bunch of sharp-teethed Lilliputians on
Gulliver?
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
myer...@my-deja.com
So I guess your point is that it is legal to lie under oath, if the
subject you lie about should not have been admitted into the trial in
the first place?
>
> See also Rule 403 (which Wright mentioned explicitly in
> excluding the Lewinsky evidence), and the notes to the
> above Rules. These sums up pretty much why we don't
> allow free-ranging inquiries into someone's sex life.
> It generally isn't relevant, and its use is primarily
> to harass ir embarrass a party. Which is _precisely_
> what they were doing with it here.
>
> > . . . Didn't
> > Clinton, lie about this, under oath?
>
> Did he? Pick a statement you think was perjurious, and
> let's see whether it meets the criteria.
Well, I believe he claimed that he and Monica were never alone
together. Now a typical Clinton defense might be "it depends on what the
definition of alone is". Clinton might try to argue that there were
other people in the building. One could play philosophical word games
and claim that no one is ever totally alone. But I think it's reasonable
to conclude that Clinton understood what the question was asking, and
deliberately gave misleading testimony, that was, for all practical
purposes, a lie. Didn't the judge herself rule it was perjury? Isn't
that why Clinton get disbarred?
Well, then it sounds like Clinton didn't have a very good lawyer. Or
perhaps it was the judges fault for allowing such questioning.
Point well taken. While it seems Clinton really did wilfully make
statements that he knew were false and misleading under oath, perhaps he
should not be penalized because they had no legal right to ask him such
questions in the first place. If this is the way the law works, then
fine.
Opinion based on what? You think it should it be legal to lie in a
court of law? If so, what will be the consequences?
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Holger Dansk <Hol...@Mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:01:01 -0400, Arne Langsetmo
> <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > "In the latest travesty, as revealed by the Washington Post,
> > Starr used prosecutors and FBI agents to interrogate Arkansas
> > state troopers about women with whom Bill Clinton allegedly had
> > affairs prior to his presidency. Starr's deputy argues that
> > they had a duty to find out whether Clinton might have confided
> > some incriminating statements to these women. Fine--until you
> > consider the questions Starr's agents actually asked. They
> > wanted to know whether one woman had borne a child who
> > resembled Clinton and whether any of the officers had witnessed
> > Clinton having sex with local women."
> >
> > (U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 1997)
>
Great riposte. I'm slain. On what do you base that
curious opinion of yours in the face of the facts just
cited? Blind faith? Revealed wisdom? Please,
share so we may all become as enlightened as you.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Bum Steer
self-centered, self-absorbed elitist who is disillusioned about the
nature of intelligence, wisdom and cognitive skills.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:59:36 -0400, Gary James <cnj...@homemail.com>
wrote:
>The biggest trouble a democratic type government is that people who can
>not read their cereal boxes can vote for the people who are to lead our
>government.
>
>Considering that any literacy test voting requirement tends to bring
>nervous spasms to our more sensitive liberal types, I think Mark Twain
>once had an idea which we could and should adopt.
>
>His theory was someting like this: " If any moron can vote once then a
>smarter person should get two votes, and a college educated person
>should get three".
>
>We've come a long way but unfortunately public education has be in
>reverse. So let us discard any notion of education being the key to how
>many votes a person gets. There are too many Phd fools running
>around. Instead let us use IQ, for we all have one, so what could be
>fairer ?
[ a bunch snipped ]
*****
***** To e-mail, remove NOBUNK from address
*****
Gary James
intelligence of the average American voter, because the poor wretch isn't
even "average". You are an easy sell aren't you ? Democorat since birth
no doubt.
Gary James
Bum Steer
smart enough to cast a truly informed vote.
I'm perplexed by the fact that some people feel that they should be
chosen practitioners of democracy because somehow they are "smarter"
than certain other people (you pick the group to which you compare
positively).
How many people believe they truly know all there is to know about the
issues and the candidates and what the future holds -- and that they
can thus support a candidate because of how he intends to address all
those issues as the arise in that future.
It's no wonder that voting has been compared to a rain dance.
And don't get me started on political parties and most people's blind
allegiance to them.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:35:33 -0400, Gary James <cnj...@homemail.com>
wrote:
>That sounds pretty good to me. I am disillusioned at the lack of
>intelligence of the average American voter, because the poor wretch isn't
>even "average". You are an easy sell aren't you ? Democorat since birth
>no doubt.
>
>Gary James
>
>
>Bum Steer wrote:
>>
>> Why don't we give each a person an extra vote if they think you are an
>> self-centered, self-absorbed elitist who is disillusioned about the
>> nature of intelligence, wisdom and cognitive skills.
>>
*****
Edward Williams
i gotta say you sound a little more on the intellectual side than Mr. James
over there. wouldn't it be better to vote for independent candidates all
around? why vote for who's on the ticket just because a group of wealthy
white men who run the whole dance want either evil in the gold-studded
chair? i'm sure we all know someone who could fill the role as President &
if we all voted our hearts, over the herd instinct, maybe we'd all feel like
something was getting done?
harley
Gary James
Bum Steer wrote:
>
> Being smarter than someone else doesn't mean that you are necessarily
> smart enough to cast a truly informed vote.
You are correct and I agree. I should have used the term "informed".
There are many illiterates who keep up with what's going on by use of
radio, TV and talking to others. There are many educated and high IQ
people who don't know what's going on. Einstein, taken away from
science, was essentially a moron.
>
> I'm perplexed by the fact that some people feel that they should be
> chosen practitioners of democracy because somehow they are "smarter"
> than certain other people (you pick the group to which you compare
> positively).
I used "smarter" and high IQ because that does tend to narrow the field
down. I would not necessarily like to see a literacy test or even an IQ
test for voters, as I agree that this is not always (but closer than most)
an indication of a knowledgeable voter. But I do think each potential
voter should have to pass a strong "civics" exam. Showing their
knowledge of what this country is about. Something on the order of the
test taken by aliens who are becoming citizens. (I assume this is still
done, but with the speed this country is going to hell they may have
ceased to use this as being "racist")
>
> How many people believe they truly know all there is to know about the
> issues and the candidates and what the future holds -- and that they
> can thus support a candidate because of how he intends to address all
> those issues as the arise in that future.
You are right again. But they should be required to know something. And
not this crap about "what's in it for me". This goes for the corporate
giants as well as the poverty/victim pimps and whores.
>
> It's no wonder that voting has been compared to a rain dance.
>
> And don't get me started on political parties and most people's blind
> allegiance to them.
I won't. I despise this mindset as much as anyone and more than most.
Please pardon my "flame" response. I didn't realize you were as
thoughtful and thinking person as I now see you to be.
Gary James
Gary James
I admire independent thinkers such as yourself. That's why we're going to
put Buchanan in the White House. Right ?
Gary James
Bum Steer
>> Being smarter than someone else doesn't mean that you are necessarily
>> smart enough to cast a truly informed vote.
>
>You are correct and I agree. I should have used the term "informed".
>There are many illiterates who keep up with what's going on by use of
>radio, TV and talking to others. There are many educated and high IQ
>people who don't know what's going on. Einstein, taken away from
>science, was essentially a moron.
Even the term "informed" is relative -- subjective. There's a lot
that even the most informed people do not know. Of course, we should
try to be as informed as we can.
> I used "smarter" and high IQ because that does tend to narrow the field
>down. I would not necessarily like to see a literacy test or even an IQ
>test for voters, as I agree that this is not always (but closer than most)
>an indication of a knowledgeable voter. But I do think each potential
>voter should have to pass a strong "civics" exam. Showing their
>knowledge of what this country is about. Something on the order of the
>test taken by aliens who are becoming citizens. (I assume this is still
>done, but with the speed this country is going to hell they may have
>ceased to use this as being "racist")
The civics exam would have to be pretty broad about what "this country
is all about"... since many good Americans have honest disagreements
over even the most fundamental issues that arise from our
Constitution.
An interesting side point to all this is that no one seems to demand
that politicians be intelligent or even informed. I have worked
around state legislators for many years and it's quite interesting how
uninformed or misinformed they are about their own legislative
procedures and even the laws they themselves sponsored!
>> How many people believe they truly know all there is to know about the
>> issues and the candidates and what the future holds -- and that they
>> can thus support a candidate because of how he intends to address all
>> those issues as the arise in that future.
>
>You are right again. But they should be required to know something. And
>not this crap about "what's in it for me". This goes for the corporate
>giants as well as the poverty/victim pimps and whores.
Our society, due to the emphasis on capitalism over community,
promotes the "what's in it for me" mentality. You might (or might
not) be amazed at the number of people I've spoken to who believe in
making voter registration easier only for those people sympathetic
with like beliefs. Or the elected officials who say the only higher
voter turnout they want is from people who support them.
Unfortunately, among a certain group of citizens, there is little
concern about the larger issue of democratic governance.
One result of this attitude is the way that politicians target their
campaign activities and resources to certain targeted populations,
ignoring the rest. Most politicians are not seeking to build a
consensus in America or even represent themselves as "a man (or woman)
for all people" ... they only want enough votes to get into office
rather than to seek a true mandate to lead the
country/state/county/city.
>> It's no wonder that voting has been compared to a rain dance.
>>
>> And don't get me started on political parties and most people's blind
>> allegiance to them.
>
>I won't. I despise this mindset as much as anyone and more than most.
>Please pardon my "flame" response. I didn't realize you were as
>thoughtful and thinking person as I now see you to be.
No problem with the flame. Those things don't bother me.
zu...@ix.netcom.com
Specifically, the requiremnt is materiality. But it is a pretty
good argument that something that is irrelevant is per se
immaterial.
> > See also Rule 403 (which Wright mentioned explicitly in
> > excluding the Lewinsky evidence), and the notes to the
> > above Rules. These sums up pretty much why we don't
> > allow free-ranging inquiries into someone's sex life.
> > It generally isn't relevant, and its use is primarily
> > to harass ir embarrass a party. Which is _precisely_
> > what they were doing with it here.
> >
> > > . . . Didn't
> > > Clinton, lie about this, under oath?
> >
> > Did he? Pick a statement you think was perjurious, and
> > let's see whether it meets the criteria.
>
> Well, I believe he claimed that he and Monica were never alone
> together. . . .
What was the specific question, and what was his answer>
> Now a typical Clinton defense might be "it depends on
> what the definition of alone is".
Huh? It's not Clinton that has difficult with the present
and past tenses of the verb is. This is a "red herring".
Clinton was nice enough to point out to the questioners
that _their_ verb tense was ambiguous at the very least,
if not outright wrong WRT what they were trying to ask.
They asked (IIRC) "is there a sexual relationship:, to
which he quite reasonably replied that "this depends on
what the meaning of 'is' is." At the time of questioning,
were was no longer an ongoing sexual relationship, so
he _could_ have answered simply "no" here. Perhaps out
of kindness to the witless questioners, or perhaps out
of concern that someone would try to nail him for saying
"no" even though it was _literally_ true, but not really
the question they really intended to ask, he offered a
clarification. You should be thanking him, and kicking
the butts of the witless questioners (unless you think
that this _was_ really some kind of clever attempt by
the questioners to get him to reply falsely to a question
by deliberately using the worng tense in the question).
> . . . Clinton might try to argue that there were
> other people in the building. . . .
Yes, he might. It is the duty of the _questioner_ to
remove any ambiguity in the answer. See the Bronston
case: Bronston v. U.S., 409 U.S. 352 (1973)
> . . . One could play philosophical
> word games and claim that no one is ever totally alone. . . .
Or one could say WTF difference does it make to you or me or
Adam whether he was alone, with or without her. If they
bothered to ask the right queztions, they might have gotten
the response they wanted. They already _had_ Tripp's account,
and they knew what Tripp had claimed that Lewinsky had said.
That's probably _not_ what they weer trying to do, however.
They didn't want to tip their hand, I would guess. Why?
Were they seeking the truth here, or were they seeking
something else?
> . . . But I think it's reasonable
> to conclude that Clinton understood what the question was
> asking, and deliberately gave misleading testimony, that
> was, for all practical purposes, a lie. . . .
It isn't the duty of the person being questioned to divine
the intent behind the questions being asked. See the Bronston
case. And it is not a crime to give _misleading_ testimony,
even _deliberately_. Once again, see Bronston.
> . . . Didn't the judge herself rule it was perjury? . . .
No.
> . . . Isn't
> that why Clinton get disbarred?
He didn't get disbarred. Not yet, in any case.
> lawyer. . . .
His lawyer _did_ object, and asked for a proof of relevancy.
The Jones lawyers said they could show this later. Wright
decided to defer a decision on Bennett's objection, and to
allow questioning to proceed. IIRC.
But Wright later decided to exclude the entire Lewinsky evidence
and even to prevent further inquiry onthis line, and in her
decision she mentioned that FRE Rule 403 and other rules
might have made the evidence inadmissible in any case (although
she didn't explicitly rule on this at the time).
> . . . Or perhaps it was the judges fault for allowing such
> questioning.
I would say yes.
> legal right to ask him such questions in the first place. . . .
I'd say that their relevance was very tenuous. And that it
is not quite clear where he did in fact lie.
> . . . If this is the way the law works, then
> fine.
It is. Or at least it _should_ be. Which we will see if Ray
ever decidee to try and take this thing to court.
They do it all the time. and the laws don't stop them. Any
time you have such a rate of violation which mostly goes
unpunished (and in many cases _can't_ be punished), you have
the very real threat that prosecutions will be based more
on considerations outside the actual harm done. I would say
that perjury prosecutions for civil cases could easily be
done away with. The remedy there is generally to simply
let the side judged to be the liar by the jury _lose_.
Certainly, perjury during discovery (as opposed to perjury
in front of the jury) would seem to be an easily rectifiable
harm, and not too worthy of much attention.
Perjury in criminal cases would seem to be less a problem
(as the defendant doesn't even have to testify), unless
you think that government witnesses are prone to such.
And there are other laws about witness tanpering that can
be used.
I think it's simply unreasonable to ask anyone to testify
against their own interests. Some will, but some won't.
Witnesses should be _willing_ witnesses. The cure is in
more testimony, not the heavy hand of prosecution for what
you actually say in court if haled there. Isn't such a
threat just a little too much like the old schools of
"interrogation" that our Founders eschewed when they
formewd our system of government?
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
CDH
Hash: SHA1
Gary James <cnj...@homemail.com> wrote in message
news:39A67EDB...@homemail.com...
>
>
> Bum Steer wrote:
> >
> > How many people believe they truly know all there is to know
> > about the issues and the candidates and what the future holds --
> > and that they can thus support a candidate because of how he
> > intends to address all those issues as the arise in that future.
>
> You are right again. But they should be required to know
> something. And not this crap about "what's in it for me". This
> goes for the corporate giants as well as the poverty/victim pimps
> and whores.
>
I didn't see the original post so I'll have to jump in late. John
Stuart Mill proposed 4 basic requirements that a citizen must meet
before being allowed to vote:
1) NOT on welfare;
2) NOT under bankruptcy protection;
3) a taxpayer (specifically, a capitation or poll tax that rises or
falls in tandem with govt. spending); and
4) literate, both in basic verbal and math skills.
To this list I would add: NOT a convicted felon, unless either the
President or governor chooses to restore the franchise, or at least
until the felon has kept a clean nose for a substantial time period
after release (perhaps 10 years).
I would also prohibit govt. employees from voting at their level of
govt. (i.e., federal employees can't vote for Pres. or Congress,
state employees can't vote for governor, legislator or any other
statewide office, etc.), for the simple reason that they are a
built-in tax-and-spend advocacy bloc. And with regard to Mill's 3rd
condition, in referenda involving property taxes only those who would
directly pay the taxes (i.e., property owners) should have a vote.
Note that *none* of the above conditions has anything to do with
race, creed, gender, etc. and *all* are related to the citizen's
behavior and character, and can be overcome by those willing to do
so. IOW, as Mill put it, voting is a privilege which must be earned
rather than an absolute right, but all must be allowed the
opportunity to earn it. And *no one* should be allowed to vote for
higher taxes that they would not have to pay. We're getting very
close to that "point of tyranny" here in the US; nearly 1/2 of the
electorate pay no income tax at all. Unfortunately, as far as I can
determine only Neal Boortz has mentioned this fact (and the danger
inherent therein) on his radio talk show. Check him out online at
www.boortz.com. To read Mill's comments verbatim, I heartily
recommend the Kennedy brothers' book "The South Was Right!"
FWIW, my proposed new CSA constitution incorporates Items 1-3 in
the above list as voting requirements for President and Congress (the
states are allowed to set their own voting rules, but may not deny
the franchise solely for race, gender, etc. I left out condition #4
because I can't come up with an objective standard for judging
literacy. ~25 yrs. ago, a HS diploma might have sufficed, but the
decline in public education has made most of today's diplomas
irrelevant.
Dave in Occupied Florida
---------------
"Everything that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood
of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, 'tis time to part."
-- Thomas Paine, "Common Sense"
- --
ROT13 the "reply to" for actual e-mail address.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.1
iQA/AwUBOaxfVJbo4dyDcn19EQJCqgCeO+tpjtON6src+qaoImJ0t3YhW7UAn02t
+HjJC5JtdNeJBQuGpl4IgHSR
=NCb2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gary James
CDH, your input is always appreciated so here is the original post.
Gary James
Gary James wrote: Aug 18, 2000
>
> The biggest trouble a democratic type government is that people who can
> not read their cereal boxes can vote for the people who are to lead our
> government.
>
> Considering that any literacy test voting requirement tends to bring
> nervous spasms to our more sensitive liberal types, I think Mark Twain
> once had an idea which we could and should adopt.
>
> His theory was someting like this: " If any moron can vote once then a
> smarter person should get two votes, and a college educated person
> should get three".
>
> We've come a long way but unfortunately public education has be in
> reverse. So let us discard any notion of education being the key to how
> many votes a person gets. There are too many Phd fools running
> around. Instead let us use IQ, for we all have one, so what could be
> fairer ?
>
> To be totally "fair" let's agree that the average American has an IQ of
> 100. So we will then give every citizen, over the age of 18 and whose
> body is still above room temperature, 5 votes to cast if his/her IQ is
> between 95 and 105.
>
> For every ten points in variation a person would win/lose one vote. For
> example a person at 115 would gain one to give them 6 votes. 125 would
> get 7 and 135 would get 8.
>
> If a person falls to 85, he loses one giving him/her 4 votes. An IQ of
> 75 would only have 3, and the people with 65, would have two. And even
> the 55s who probably can't find the voting booth will have 1 good old
> American vote.
>
> That would eliminate all that nasty old racist talk about those racist
> voting requirements. And I think it will help "bring us together"
> <sniff, sniff> I think I'll take this to the next meeting of the
> NAACP. I'll bet they will champion my proposal. I bet I get a stand
> "O". And think how Algore and his band of brigands will think of
> this.
>
> Gary James
Fre...@liberty.com
>I didn't see the original post so I'll have to jump in late. John
>Stuart Mill proposed 4 basic requirements that a citizen must meet
>before being allowed to vote:
>1) NOT on welfare;
>2) NOT under bankruptcy protection;
Such assignment of qualifications to determine voter eligibility would
be subject to Article IV, Section 4, and Bill Of Rights Article of
Amendment X.
>3) a taxpayer (specifically, a capitation or poll tax that rises or
>falls in tandem with govt. spending); and
That would require repeal of the 24th Amendment.
>4) literate, both in basic verbal and math skills.
How about knowledge of the Constitution?
> To this list I would add: NOT a convicted felon, unless either the
>President or governor chooses to restore the franchise, or at least
>until the felon has kept a clean nose for a substantial time period
>after release (perhaps 10 years).
That would be up to each State to so legislate.
> I would also prohibit govt. employees from voting at their level of
>govt. (i.e., federal employees can't vote for Pres. or Congress,
>state employees can't vote for governor, legislator or any other
>statewide office, etc.), for the simple reason that they are a
>built-in tax-and-spend advocacy bloc.
No, for the simple reason that it's Inappropriate to afford Public
SERVANTS the opportunity to vote themselves toward their becoming
MASTERS.
>And with regard to Mill's 3rd
>condition, in referenda involving property taxes only those who would
>directly pay the taxes (i.e., property owners) should have a vote.
The Vast Majority of people in this Once Free Country, while occupying
and possessing Property, DO NOT in Fact actually OWN it. This is
PROVEN time and again by the Tyranny of "Eminent Domain".
> Note that *none* of the above conditions has anything to do with
>race, creed, gender, etc. and *all* are related to the citizen's
>behavior and character, and can be overcome by those willing to do
>so.
And Overcoming Tyranny should be FIRST on the list!
>IOW, as Mill put it, voting is a privilege which must be earned
>rather than an absolute right, but all must be allowed the
>opportunity to earn it.
Since WHEN is being Represented in government a privilege?
>And *no one* should be allowed to vote for
>higher taxes that they would not have to pay.
Do you have any examples?
>We're getting very
>close to that "point of tyranny"
We're NOT getting very close...WE'RE ALREADY THERE...AND THINGS ARE
GETTING WORSE ALL THE TIME!!!
>here in the US; nearly 1/2 of the
>electorate pay no income tax at all.
They're not required to by Law...and that's also True of the VAST
MAJORITY of Americans who work for a living.
>Unfortunately, as far as I can
>determine only Neal Boortz has mentioned this fact (and the danger
>inherent therein) on his radio talk show. Check him out online at
>www.boortz.com. To read Mill's comments verbatim, I heartily
>recommend the Kennedy brothers' book "The South Was Right!"
They WHY was there so little, if any, attention given to the
Constitution for the United States of America during that War of
Usurpation?
> FWIW, my proposed new CSA constitution incorporates Items 1-3 in
>the above list as voting requirements for President and Congress (the
>states are allowed to set their own voting rules, but may not deny
>the franchise solely for race, gender, etc. I left out condition #4
>because I can't come up with an objective standard for judging
>literacy. ~25 yrs. ago, a HS diploma might have sufficed, but the
>decline in public education has made most of today's diplomas
>irrelevant.
The Constitution does it better...but ONLY IF it's followed.
> ---------------
>"Everything that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood
> of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, 'tis time to part."
> -- Thomas Paine, "Common Sense"
Yes, and that separation from Great Britain has come to pass...NOW we
need to Separate ourselves from Tyranny...by REMOVING the Tyrants and
RESTORING our Nation!
------------------------------------
THE AMERICAN RESTORATION IS AT HAND!
------------------------------------
jim patterson
> ...NOW we
>need to Separate ourselves from Tyranny...by REMOVING the Tyrants and
>RESTORING our Nation!
>------------------------------------
>THE AMERICAN RESTORATION IS AT HAND!
>------------------------------------
Hey, is it just me or are more and more people who have apathetically
sat back and done nothing but accept for the last few decades
beginning to feel this way.
Bum Steer
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:21:43 -0400, Gary James <cnj...@homemail.com>
wrote:
[ oft-repeated stuff snipped ]
>>
>> I didn't see the original post so I'll have to jump in late. John
>> Stuart Mill proposed 4 basic requirements that a citizen must meet
>> before being allowed to vote:
>> 1) NOT on welfare;
Is this a "conflict of interest" argument (people dependent on the
state shouldn't be able to determine who is giving them their benefits
or whether their benefits would continue) or an argument that if
someone is on welfare, then he or she certainly does not contain the
virtues necessary for self-governance?
>> 2) NOT under bankruptcy protection;
Someone who is bankrupt doesn't have the virtues necessary for
self-governance?
>> 3) a taxpayer (specifically, a capitation or poll tax that rises or
>> falls in tandem with govt. spending); and
Only those with the money to pay a membership fee should be able to
take part in the offerings of the club?
And what does this have to do with government spending? Oh!
Self-interest! Keep government expenditures low and one wouldn't have
to pay a lot to join the club!
>> 4) literate, both in basic verbal and math skills.
Literate ... or not mentally incompetent?
>> To this list I would add: NOT a convicted felon, unless either the
>> President or governor chooses to restore the franchise, or at least
>> until the felon has kept a clean nose for a substantial time period
>> after release (perhaps 10 years).
Well, in most states, convicted felons are stripped of their voting
rights. And some states do not automatically restore those rights,
even if the full sentence has been served.
>> I would also prohibit govt. employees from voting at their level of
>> govt. (i.e., federal employees can't vote for Pres. or Congress,
>> state employees can't vote for governor, legislator or any other
>> statewide office, etc.), for the simple reason that they are a
>> built-in tax-and-spend advocacy bloc.
The argument being that a private sector employee can't select his or
her own boss, so why should a government employee?
>> And with regard to Mill's 3rd
>> condition, in referenda involving property taxes only those who would
>> directly pay the taxes (i.e., property owners) should have a vote.
Since most people believe that property taxes are a "penalty" (since
the power to tax is the power to destroy), are you arguing that only
those affected by a penalty should be permitted to approve the
penalty?
Are you arguing that only someone convicted of capital murder should
be able to approve the use of the death sentence? Someone who drives
over the speed limit has to approve the fine for speeding? Nazi war
criminal should have been able to approve the penalties for crimes
against humanity?
>> Note that *none* of the above conditions has anything to do with
>> race, creed, gender, etc. and *all* are related to the citizen's
>> behavior and character, and can be overcome by those willing to do
>> so. IOW, as Mill put it, voting is a privilege which must be earned
>> rather than an absolute right, but all must be allowed the
>> opportunity to earn it. And *no one* should be allowed to vote for
>> higher taxes that they would not have to pay.
But, you do not seem to express any interest in protecting people from
taxes they didn't vote for. Therefore, under your plan, those who pay
the poll tax (and meet your other requirements for voting) would be
able to impose additional taxes on other people who have no voice in
their own governance.
Wait! We have that system no!
>> We're getting very
>> close to that "point of tyranny" here in the US; nearly 1/2 of the
>> electorate pay no income tax at all.
What percentage of corporations, who benefit from public money, don't
pay any income tax?
>> FWIW, my proposed new CSA constitution incorporates Items 1-3 in
>> the above list as voting requirements for President and Congress (the
>> states are allowed to set their own voting rules, but may not deny
>> the franchise solely for race, gender, etc. I left out condition #4
>> because I can't come up with an objective standard for judging
>> literacy. ~25 yrs. ago, a HS diploma might have sufficed, but the
>> decline in public education has made most of today's diplomas
>> irrelevant.
No wonder Confederate Resurrectionists have such a tough time being
taken seriously.
Bum Steer
wrote:
I believe the independent voters are more likely to help Mr. Gore
attain his promotion rather than put Mr. Buchanan into the White
House.
And trust me, I have never heard anyone accuse backers of Buchanan of
being truly "independent", if you know what I mean.
Gary James
><snip>
No, I truly don't understand. Did you pick this gem up at the last march
? I've heard many times how the Democrats use to load trucks full
minorities up and carry them around to "vote early and vote often". My
family has always been Democrat and I've gotten this from solid sources.
But I've never heard this about Buchanan supporters.
Gary James
Bum Steer
wrote:
>>
>> I believe the independent voters are more likely to help Mr. Gore
>> attain his promotion rather than put Mr. Buchanan into the White
>> House.
>>
>> And trust me, I have never heard anyone accuse backers of Buchanan of
>> being truly "independent", if you know what I mean.
>><snip>
>
>No, I truly don't understand. Did you pick this gem up at the last march
>? I've heard many times how the Democrats use to load trucks full
>minorities up and carry them around to "vote early and vote often". My
>family has always been Democrat and I've gotten this from solid sources.
>But I've never heard this about Buchanan supporters.
>
>Gary James
Most voters, regardless of persuasion (Democrat, Republican, liberal,
conservative), I find do any little critical thinking... otherwise,
they would see the inconsistencies of each political party's platform
and the position statements of their candidates.
Frankly, your statement about Democrat-perpetrated voter fraud does
little to impress me. If you are a Republican, ask your fellow party
members about what happened in Winston County, Alabama -- as one
example that voter fraud is not the monopoly of any one political
party.
Frankly (again), people who choose to bash political parties rather
than talk substantively about public policy/real issues impress me
not.
CDH
Hash: SHA1
Bum Steer <bumstee...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:49ptqss8ibn06o5bv...@4ax.com...
>
> >> I didn't see the original post so I'll have to jump in late.
> >> John Stuart Mill proposed 4 basic requirements that a citizen
> >> must meet before being allowed to vote: 1) NOT on welfare;
>
> Is this a "conflict of interest" argument (people dependent on the
> state shouldn't be able to determine who is giving them their
> benefits or whether their benefits would continue) or an argument
> that if someone is on welfare, then he or she certainly does not
> contain the virtues necessary for self-governance?
Both. See the Tyler sig quote at the end of this post. How much
controversy over Social Security would we have if recipients had to
hand in their voter registration cards (at least at the federal
level) as a condition of getting those checks? Quoting from Mill: "I
regard it as required by first principles, that the receipt of parish
relief should be a peremptory disqualification for the franchise. He
who cannot by his labor suffice for his own support has no claim to
the privilege of helping himself to the money of others. By becoming
dependent on the remaining members of the community for actual
subsistence, he abdicates his claim to equal rights with them in
other respects."
> >> 2) NOT under bankruptcy protection;
>
> Someone who is bankrupt doesn't have the virtues necessary for
> self-governance?
Correct. Those who declare bankruptcy are in effect forcing everyone
else to pay their debts for them in the form of higher prices,
interest rates and insurance premiums. Fiscal self-control and paying
one's debts are indeed virtues necessary for self-governance. Those
who spend beyond their means in their personal lives will have no
second thoughts about doing the same thing on a state or national
basis by voting for those who would bankrupt the treasury.
> >> 3) a taxpayer (specifically, a capitation or poll tax that rises
> >> or falls in tandem with govt. spending); and
>
> Only those with the money to pay a membership fee should be able to
> take part in the offerings of the club?
Mill: "It is...important, that the assembly which votes the
taxes...should be elected exclusively by those who pay something
toward the taxes imposed. Those who pay no taxes, disposing by their
votes of other people's money, have every motive to be lavish and
none to economize...(A)ny power of voting possessed by them is a
violation of the fundamental principle of free government." Get rid
of the welfare state -- make it constitutionally impossible for
people to vote themselves money from the public treasury -- and there
will be no "offerings".
> And what does this have to do with government spending? Oh!
> Self-interest! Keep government expenditures low and one wouldn't
> have to pay a lot to join the club!
You're right in spite of yourself. Mill: "It would be better...that a
small annual payment, rising and falling with the gross expenditure
of the courntry, should be required from every registered elector;
that so everyone might feel that the money which he assisted in
voting was partly his own, and that he was interested in keeping down
its amount." If every person who wanted to vote for President or
Congress had to cough up (for example) $1 for every $1 billion in
federal spending, they'd now be looking at a capitation of nearly
$1800 every other year (no elections in odd years, so no capitation
in those years). Reduce federal spending to what the Constitution
actually allows, though, and those numbers decline by a good 75%
(rough estimate). A powerful incentive to reduce spending and adhere
to the Constitution.
> >> 4) literate, both in basic verbal and math skills.
>
> Literate ... or not mentally incompetent?
Mill said it best: "...people would no more think of giving the
suffrage to a man who could not read, than of giving it to a child
who could not speak; and it would not be society that would exclude
him, but his own laziness...It would be eminently desirable that
other things besides reading, writing and arithmetic could be made
necessary to the suffrage; that some knowledge of the confirmation of
the earth, its natural and political divisions, the elements of
general history and of the history and institutions of their own
country, be required from all electors...[A]fter a few years it would
exclude none but those who cared so little for the privilege, that
their vote, if given, would not in general be an indication of any
real political opinion." Kinda hard, for instance, to have a coherent
foreign policy when many (most?) Americans can't find their own
country on a world map, or a sane fiscal policy when a large % of
voters don't know the difference between a million and a billion. Now
you know why most govt. schools are so rotten -- big govt. requires
an ignorant populace.
> Well, in most states, convicted felons are stripped of their voting
> rights. And some states do not automatically restore those rights,
> even if the full sentence has been served.
Florida is one of them (thank goodness). Nearly all convicts who
apply for restoration of voting rights are approved, but most don't
bother. They're probably too busy planning their next crime.
> >> I would also prohibit govt. employees from voting at their
> >> level of govt. (i.e., federal employees can't vote for Pres. or
> >> Congress, state employees can't vote for governor, legislator
> >> or any other statewide office, etc.), for the simple reason that
> >> they are a built-in tax-and-spend advocacy bloc.
>
> The argument being that a private sector employee can't select his
> or her own boss, so why should a government employee?
Actually, we the taxpayers are the bureaucrats' "bosses," and since
private-sector employees can't vote themselves a pay hike,
bureaucrats shouldn't be able to either. We had a related problem in
a Texas school district I used to live in. A majority of school board
members were married to administrators, and were constantly piling on
more layers of bureaucracy and approving big pay raises for employees
(raising their family income as a result, even though board members
earned no salary). Such situations require strict
conflict-of-interest rules. Again, it all goes back to people voting
themselves tax dollars.
> Since most people believe that property taxes are a "penalty"
> (since the power to tax is the power to destroy), are you arguing
> that only those affected by a penalty should be permitted to
> approve the penalty?
>
> Are you arguing that only someone convicted of capital murder
> should be able to approve the use of the death sentence? Someone
> who drives over the speed limit has to approve the fine for
> speeding? Nazi war criminal should have been able to approve the
> penalties for crimes against humanity?
The power to tax is indeed the power to destroy, which is why people
who tax themselves have an interest in keeping those taxes low. Those
who can freely tax (destroy) others and exempt themselves, OTOH, have
no such incentive. That's why there's a universe of difference
between taxes (provided they're self-imposed) and crime (destruction
imposed on others). It is not immoral to *voluntarily* tax oneself;
it is utterly immoral to perpetuate force or fraud on someone else.
Crime is a moral issue, not an economic one. It all boils down to
consent, which criminals never ask for.
>
> But, you do not seem to express any interest in protecting people
> from taxes they didn't vote for. Therefore, under your plan, those
> who pay the poll tax (and meet your other requirements for voting)
> would be able to impose additional taxes on other people who have
> no voice in their own governance.
Here in Florida it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to impose a new
tax or increase an existing one, and the constitution prohibits an
income tax. That's the main method of preventing such abuse. Besides,
imposing a tax on someone who hadn't previously paid it makes that
person a taxpayer, and therefore either instantly eligible to vote or
a lot closer to qualifying. Just credit taxes paid against the poll
tax. For example, if the poll tax is $200 and a person paid $150 in
taxes, he/she would have to pay only an additional $50 to vote. At
the same time, someone whose tax bill exceeds $200 has paid his/her
poll tax in full.
> What percentage of corporations, who benefit from public money,
> don't pay any income tax?
Do you honestly believe businesses *genuinely* pay any taxes? In
the final analysis, only individuals pay taxes. Any tax levied
against a corporation or other business is ultimately passed on to
its employees (in the form of lower wages), to the consumers (in the
form of higher prices) or both. You may not see the employer's share
of the FICA tax as a deduction on your pay stub, but it's there --
the employer adjusted your pay downward to reflect the extra cost of
hiring you & doing business. So everyone pays the full 15.3%, not
just the self-employed. That's why several folks have proposed having
employers show *all* such costs on pay stubs, so employees can see
just how much hidden expense is involved in having them on the
payroll. Some companies already do so.
As for corporations benefiting from tax dollars (corporate
welfare), abolish the welfare. No subsidies or other govt. largesse
of any kind. The original CSA constitution stated: "All bills
appropriating money shall specify the exact amount of each
appropriation, and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress
shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer,
agent or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such
service rendered." Also, Congress could not spend money not requested
by the President or one of his Cabinet except by a 2/3 vote of both
houses. That's how you eliminate pork-barrel spending & corporate
welfare.
Dave in Occupied Florida
---------------
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will
within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often
but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights
of the individual."
-- Thomas Jefferson
----------------
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the majority of the people discover
they can vote themselves money from the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tyler
- --
ROT13 the "reply to" for actual e-mail address.
TANSTAAFL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.1
iQA/AwUBOa/ANpbo4dyDcn19EQIg6ACbB1/W/H3SB2SNcijT/vFQacQ0eRcAmwXK
ILDSQowN4/3mi42ZlAdQbIpx
=C+fV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gary James
Bum Steer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:39:19 -0400, Gary James <cnj...@homemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I believe the independent voters are more likely to help Mr. Gore
> >> attain his promotion rather than put Mr. Buchanan into the White
> >> House.
> >>
> >> And trust me, I have never heard anyone accuse backers of Buchanan of
> >> being truly "independent", if you know what I mean.
> >><snip>
> >
> >No, I truly don't understand. Did you pick this gem up at the last march
> >? I've heard many times how the Democrats use to load trucks full
> >minorities up and carry them around to "vote early and vote often". My
> >family has always been Democrat and I've gotten this from solid sources.
> >But I've never heard this about Buchanan supporters.
> >
> >Gary James
>
> Most voters, regardless of persuasion (Democrat, Republican, liberal,
> conservative), I find do any little critical thinking... otherwise,
> they would see the inconsistencies of each political party's platform
> and the position statements of their candidates.
>
> Frankly, your statement about Democrat-perpetrated voter fraud does
> little to impress me. If you are a Republican,
But I'm not Republican. Never have been. never will be. I'm a Democrat
who has had to vote Republican or Independent since 1960 only for the
national offices. I vote mostly Democrat on the state and local levels.
>ask your fellow party
> members about what happened in Winston County, Alabama -- as one
> example that voter fraud is not the monopoly of any one political
> party.
>
> Frankly (again), people who choose to bash political parties rather
> than talk substantively about public policy/real issues impress me
> not.
Name a single issue that concerns you and let's discuss it.
>
> *****
> ***** To e-mail, remove NOBUNK from address
> *****
Gary James
bill clinton
I still believe our country can be adjusted through the voting
process...oh, maybe that's what that means.
jim patterson
have said it before.
Personally, i have voted in every election this year and i know that a
lot of others have too. I know that to say i have voted this year is
No Big Deal at all, but i was one of the apathetic for years.