No.. That's the statement you made. Reastating your statement does not support your statement.I already have...
No... the sole purpose of the law is to make sure that a certain group of people does not use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society. Period.The sole purpose of such a law would be to give one group of people power over another, period.
Not according to your definition of fascism.This country would no longer be a Representative Republic. It would put us on the road to a Fascist state.
The US Constitiution does not say EVERYONE gets one vote; as you have agreed, some people can be prohibited from voting.The US Constitution says that each citizen gets 1 vote...
Strawman:...regardless of how much money he or she makes, period.
The VRA doesnt define the Constitution. There are numerous Constituionally valid restructions on who can vote; to argue that a restriction on who can vote, in and of itself violates the Constitution is unsupportable.Now add the voting rights legislation in 1965 and Constitutionally it fails.
No, its to make sure that a certain group of people does not use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of societyNo it's not. It is nothing but a power play to silence the poor.
How is it more arbitrary that limiting voting age to 18?Yes it is, so what?
I think that is a really bad idea. The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 pretty much agrees.
I don't think voting should be based on anything other than being a citizen and not convicted of a felony.
All that would come of this is tyranny of one group over another.
Taxes used as a weapon against the poor. Again this is a really bad idea.
Strawman:I can sum this up right now.
In this country we do not have a plebeian system. A persons worth to society can not be summed up by any monetary amount, and should not be.
Strawman, red herring, non-sequitur:You have not served in the military, you have not given enough to society, and have reaped the benefits of my service.
Its also not comparative in any relevant way.Now my statement above is unreasonable...
You still have not explained how the proposal is any more arbitrary tna limiting the voting age to 18+and just as unreasonable as what you suppose.
Strawman:
Nothing here discusses, concerns, or revolves around a persons' worth.
Strawman, red herring, non-sequitur:
The issue here is direct benefit of an individual though government payment versus direct contribution to the goverment via taxation. Indirect benefit of a society though ann indirect contribution my a number of the members of that society is a seperate, and non-comparable, issue.
Its also not comparative in any relevant way.
You still have not explained how the proposal is any more arbitrary tna limiting the voting age to 18+
I can sum this up right now.
Strawman:
You still have not explained how the proposal is any more arbitrary tna limiting the voting age to 18+
All you've summed up with the preceding monologue is your inability to logically rebut the points I've made.
1: Your "sole purpose" statement is incorrect, as has been demonstratedYes it does and I quote...
"the sole purpose of the law is to make sure that a certain group of people does not use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society. Period."
Worth meaning monetary input into society through taxes.
No...Bull. It is exactly the same.
Please: Provide the quote of you doing this.Yes I have.You still have not explained how the proposal is any more arbitrary than limiting the voting age to 18+
Until we live under a plebeian system you have no point really.
I have already covered most of what you said in preceding posts. No need to retype all of it.
YOU claimed that the proposal was arbitrary.Forgot to mention...
This has nothing to do with arbitrary anything.
It has MORE to do with people not being able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society.It has to do with all people having a fair shake in the government they live under.
All you have to do to have that voice is give as much as or more than you take.Everyone should have a voice.
1: Your "sole purpose" statement is incorrect, as has been demonstrated
2. No ones 'worth" is defined by the money they pay in taxes by this proposal; the proposal does not judge the worth of the person, but the propriety of allowing somene to use his political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society.
No...
One is a direct, quantifiable benefit pad to an individual by the government compared to the direct, quantifiable contribution paid TO the government by that individual; the other is an indirect, unquantifiable benefit provided to everyone by the givernment.
Thats only remotely similar; it is by no means "exactly the same".
Please: Provide the quote of you doing this.
Then answer the question:
Why do you want a certain group of people to be able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society?
YOU claimed that the proposal was arbitrary.
It has MORE to do with people not being able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society.
Why do you want a certain group of people to be able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society?
All you have to do to have that voice is give as much as or more than you take.
Yes you have... what?Yes I have.
The issue isnt agenda, the issue is using political power for personal benefit at the expense of society.What is a vote if not to put forth your own agenda?
Yes... for the perfeclty legitimate reasons stated - that people should not be able to use their political power for ther own personal gian, at the cost of the rest of society.Again you are trying to restrict another's right to have a voice in their government by how much welfare they collect in whatever form including unemployment insurance vs the taxes they pay.
I have demonstrated otherwise.It is the same.
You did not answer my question.They have the same opportunity and one vote as everyone else, period.
This dies not give them anymore power or ability than anyone else.
Then show how it is more arbitrary than the other restrictions placed on the right to vote.It is...
No... but taking from society more than you give to it (which is the issue here ) is.Someone being able to vote is not at the expense of society
Are we supposed to be able to use our political power to benefit ourselves at the expense of others?It is what makes us a society where people are supposed to have a voice.
And yet, you agree that the right to vote does not apply to everyone.I want every citizen of the US to have a voice in our government. To silence one group or another goes against the very fabric of what the US is supposed to represent.
True freedom also means that people cannot force you to give them the means necessary to promote their own self-interest.True freedom has no such restriction.
Then show how it is more arbitrary than the other restrictions placed on the right to vote.
No... but taking from society more than you give to it (which is the issue here ) is.
Are we supposed to be able to use our political power to benefit ourselves at the expense of others?
And yet, you agree that the right to vote does not apply to everyone.
True freedom also means that people cannot force you to give them the means necessary to promote their own self-interest.
luners mate do you think I do not sympathize with your sentiments a bit.
Dont forget my Serbian mother in law and my Croatian father in law were in there house in Drnis when the Serbian Tanks rolled over the hills at the back of the house.
I do not wish to talk of the atrocities that happened in Drnis and Knin then or when General Ante Golovina returned to drive the Serbs out.
I was in Serbia last year the Pizda's are becoming harder to find, the majority of the young like in Northern Ireland want peace and prosperity, should we deny them this because of the sins of there ancestors, that game is entreched in the black heart of Balkan Nationalists.
Has our royal family not met with the Japanese royal family, is Germany not part of th EU, should we deny the Turks because of what the ottermans did.
Paisley sits with McGuinness and Adams
Indeed, "for now" is the correct way to say it.The benefits of the EU far outweigh the negatives of the EU.... for now at least.
Indeed, "for now" is the correct way to say it.
Because in the long term, it is a disaster.
Right.Not so. If that were true then all great unions would be a disaster, and I doubt you would call the US a disaster... well at least yet.
Not so. If that were true then all great unions would be a disaster, and I doubt you would call the US a disaster... well at least yet.
Nationalism is the most ridiculous ideology on the planet. Being proud because you were born on a piece of ground that happens to be under the jurisdicition of a government and a flag. Awesome. It's essentially the largest 'I'll take credit and be proud of something I had little, if anything, to do with' ideology. Nations exist to divide - bring on the EU and the AU.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?