J
- Status
J
janw
Guest
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Hi all.
After starting this thread and trying to keep up with all the responses, a number of things have come up, including the death of a friend (funeral was this morning). Just been crazy. Might try to get back into the thread this weekend, but didn’t want it to appear as if I’d been raptured and get everyone else worried.
-S.A.
After starting this thread and trying to keep up with all the responses, a number of things have come up, including the death of a friend (funeral was this morning). Just been crazy. Might try to get back into the thread this weekend, but didn’t want it to appear as if I’d been raptured and get everyone else worried.
-S.A.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
And, ironically, in some counties she would still be have a vote.
J
janw
Guest
Sorry about your friend, but I do like your sense of humor. Hope things get better for you.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
A representative republic. Democratic is just a nice word we’ve started using, but isn’t part of the founding principles.
Why law abiding? Why citizen? Why not just residents? I happen to agree with you on those counts, but would like to see your explanation as to why since there are those on the thread who don’t.
Women, former slaves, and eighteen year olds do not have the right to vote. They have, according to our constitution, protection from their “right” to vote being taken away on account of those factors, but not for other reasons. You gave two (citizenship and respect for law).
No one has answered yet my proposal that we limit the ability of the elite to vote. What say you to that?
A
awfulthings9
Guest
I know – just teasing. Maybe I should have used this guy instead?
Who said it should remain permanently fixed? One can rally for a change in the law without breaking it in the meantime.
Once upon a time it was defensible, of course, which was during the drafting of our founding documents, when the “right” to vote (and yes, the word “right” appears in the amendments to the constitution, but in the negative - as to conditions under which it cannot be taken away - but not in the affirmative - as in granting it unequivocally). In addition, there were two supreme court decisions defending it. I mentioned one earlier, and the other was, of course, in the Bush v. Gore incident, in which the voting “rights” of some were examined. Again, I am not arguing my personal opinion, but as much as some have dismissed this as a “silly” thread, both of those counts make it a worthwhile discussion, and I would be curious to see more try to dive into the mentality of the supreme court and our founding fathers to try to see what their ulterior motivations would have been.This honestly isn’t very defensible, though you’ve been doing an admirable job with what you’ve got. I think I’m pretty thoroughly set in a role here, but pm me before the next one and I’ll see about giving you a hand
A
awfulthings9
Guest
No it didn’t. Go read the words carefully. Those amendments simply prevented one’s “right” to vote from being taken away on account of race, sex, or age. The right has never been given in the affirmative. One can disagree with whether it should have been worded this way or not. One can also disagree with supreme court decisions, but I’m shocked at how many on the thread have just outright denied the actuality of these facts without presenting evidence to the contrary.
Even the voting rights act, which has been praised for its intent, only applies to certain problematic areas of our country and certain protections and is subject to expiration if not continually renewed.
Note that I’m not arguing (in this particular post) that the absolute right shouldn’t exist - only that it doesn’t.
They may have gotten it wrong (twice), but unfortunately even their wrong decision is more binding that our personal opinions. Also, please explain why criminal history should take that away.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Thank you (for the compliment and the accuracy).Just a point in this fascinating thread- The United States is a representative republic, not a democracy. It’s what Ben Franklin called it, anyway. There are instances of direct vote, particularly on the local level, that do in fact resemble democracy. But by and large, we vote in representatives, and they vote (and parlay and debtate) as our representatives.
Continue with your debate. It’s good!
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Where are they given this right again?
Also, (and this I truly believe), nobody should be encouraged to vote. Those who are able should be encouraged to educate themselves and then vote. Even I refrain from voting when I’ve not had time to dig into the issues deeply.
This is fascinating. Can I have your source so I can do more research into this hasty generalization?
That isn’t the case necessarily, and if you read back through the thread, I posted a link that provides analysis to the contrary.
It is discrimination to tax the rich more. Even if we look at this biblically, wasn’t a tithe a ten percent “tax” across the board.
On this note, I’ll chime in in support with whoever noted the FairTax earlier.
M
mommyof4
Guest
Wow, think of all the people who would be disqualified. There are rich, educated idiots out there, you know. And poor smart people. And poor, uneducated moral/ethical people.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
As much as some politicians promote this idea, there is much evidence to the contrary. Some would even argue that it is exactly the type of legislation and politician that promises immediate relief to the poor that makes a much harder situation for them in the long term. I personally believe minimum wage is a case in point here, but that’s a discussion for another thread.
Amen! (with “informed” being the opperative word.)
Along with less government regulation, tort reform, medical savings accounts, and attention to foreign price caps.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
I only ask because I would like to see someone defend voting rights for criminals, but not illegal immigrants. I’m curious if such a distinction is defensible.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Legal definition of involuntary manslaughter:
MANSLAUGHTER, INVOLUNTARY - In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;
Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person’s act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and
Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.
So … while it may have been accidental, the reckless disregard for the lives of others supports my argument that it would be an indication of such recklessness in the voting booth.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Sure. Some would make the argument, however, that setting up a society that fosters wealth creates for a better society (as far as standard of living goes) for all, including the poor. Those who would make that argument would ask you to compare our poorest citizens with the poor (or even the “middle class”) of countries that have focused their attention on “feel good” legislation aimed at helping the lowest rungs. On that note, it would have little to do with education or morality, but basic principles of economics.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Okay, I think I’ve caught up. I’m going to go back to watching Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang with my daughter. The lead actor of this movie is awesome and one of my favorites, but when I tried to type in his name to this post to say that, all but the middle name got edited out (
). Google the movie if you don’t recal who starred in it. I’ll check back in and take some more beatings tomorrow sometime.
). Google the movie if you don’t recal who starred in it. I’ll check back in and take some more beatings tomorrow sometime.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Even if I am poor I am going to fight to keep my vote because I will not have others making the decisions for me.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
I’ll admit that the title of this thread makes it a bit misleading and invites everyone in with a bias against it. Unfortunately, I have that title because (as my original post explains) I took it from another poster at another thread.Even if I am poor I am going to fight to keep my vote because I will not have others making the decisions for me.
However, the criteria I set up do not necessarily exclude the poor:
- not have declared bankruptcy
- have no criminal record (beyond minor misdemeanors)
- be gainfully employed (unless diagnosed with a physical disability)
Donald Trump
Martha Stuart
Paris Hilton (probably, though I’m not sure of the nature of her charges)
I should note that I, for one, see great error in point 4, in that it would exclude retired folks, so maybe it should state “or retired”.
Wait a second … weren’t you the one arguing to let this thread get buried? It was heading that way, but your post (and my response) brought it to the top again.
Sorry, just being cute. I enjoy your contributions.
J
janw
Guest
You are very wrong, in a society that foster wealth among a few the middle class and poor always slide further down into poverty. Everyone knows, with most humans the more they get, the more they want, which almost always makes them more unhappy. The only exception might be with real christians, they would want to help the poor. Remember, money is the ROOT of all evil. Its been my experience that those who were born into money or even those who became wealthy for very long, forget what its like to suffer from poverty and lose compassion and become very greedy. I always believed the trickle-down theory was the most stupid idea I ever heard.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Okay … well, in an earlier thread I provided documentation of my claim (actually a link to an easy to read analysis (with statistics).
In response, you tell me I am “very wrong”, and that “everyone knows” to the contrary, and “real Christians” think differently, and that my the theory behind part of my argument was the “most stupid” you had ever heard.
Who can argue with logic like that?
Could you please do me the favor of documenting the source for your claims, along with an explanation of what you think trickle down economics is.
- Status