EpicDude86
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 4,384
- Reaction score
- 822
- Location
- Epic Mountain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Dictatorships don't have such a hot track record either.
I think I will stick with the Constitution.
Wasn't suggesting a Dictatorship, we're suggesting that people EARN, or at least prove that they are deserving of, some of their rights: The rights that affect others. You have to take a test to drive, to get a hunting license, to carry a concealed firearm, to get certain jobs, operate large vehicles, etc. So why shouldn't something that stands to effect yourself, those around you, and those who aren't even remotely connected to you be regulated?
How is having a ruling class different than a dictatorship? Who would administer the "tests" and decide who get to be part of the ruling class?
So our constitution would be amended to read "for some of the people, by some of the people?"
That's out of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
How is having a ruling class different than a dictatorship? Who would administer the "tests" and decide who get to be part of the ruling class?
So our constitution would be amended to read "for some of the people, by some of the people?"
YouTube- SARAH PALIN BOOK SIGNING - Interviews with Supporters
So our constitution would be amended to read "for some of the people, by some of the people?"
How is having a ruling class different than a dictatorship? Who would administer the "tests" and decide who get to be part of the ruling class?
So our constitution would be amended to read "for some of the people, by some of the people?"
Well, to put it simply...the first one's an oligarchy, the second one's a dictatorship.
It'd be Oligarchy or Elitism if we picked a stupid reason to remove people from the voting process. What I seek to do is instead remove stupid people from the voting process, leaving the quasi-educated and on up to vote. We take voting rights away from felons, and yet we let complete morons vote.
Makes very little sense to me.
Some Felons are entirely capable of voting but can't.
Personally I am sick to death of people clamoring that we have some obligation to get behind this war and "support our troops" by not politicizing the issue or using the deaths of our sons and daughters as material for the anti-war cause.
This is bull****. The entire Vietnam War was an example of unnecessary, needless U.S. casualties and billions of wasted tax dollars. Back then hawks were arguing "Domino Effect" and non-interventionists were arguing "leave it alone, there will be no Domino Effect in SE Asia due to the situation in Vietnam." If you spoke out against the war you were a communist loving hippy ***** who hated the troops...whether you did or not. If you were in support of the war or you fought in it you were a baby killing war monger. Anyone ever heard of the Goldwater-Nichols Reforms? The Powell Doctrine? Anyone know why those came about? Anyone have any idea why those lessons were tossed completely out the window in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan?
So many people who use the "you can't use dead soldiers as protest material it undermines the war effort" are full of ****. Our dead and wounded are the first tragic result of this worthless and completely unnecessary campaign. They are one of the main reason we should be protesting. There was no legitimacy behind the war in Iraq because there was no necessity for it. So each and every kid that dies over there is one more reason to protest what's going on. And the absolutely botched up strategy in Afghanistan by both administrations is all the more reason to spotlight our dead troops...to say "this blood is the price of your ineptitude...fix the situation or bring our troops home so they don't have to die needlessly."
The baseless, completely stupid argument that somehow the protests by parents of dead troops negatively impacts or undermines the rest of the troops is beyond ludicrous. It's complete and utter horse**** logic with no basis in reality. It's an attempt by ignorant people to shout down others who don't agree with their myopic worldview. And usually those making those ignorant comments have no idea what is actually impacting troop morale the most.
This is so much "you're with us or your with the terrorists" nonsense.
"Who is the vice president?"
"What was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence"
"What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue"
That's the No child left Behind program questions. Well since they fixed the problems with our education system, should work for elections just as well!
Well, to put it simply...the first one's an oligarchy, the second one's a dictatorship.
Personally, I don't care for either!
It'd be Oligarchy or Elitism if we picked a stupid reason to remove people from the voting process. What I seek to do is instead remove stupid people from the voting process, leaving the quasi-educated and on up to vote. We take voting rights away from felons, and yet we let complete morons vote.
Makes very little sense to me.
Nice way to inadvertently attack a Bush program. Don't get me wrong, NCLB is ridiculous, but guaranteeing a certain level of Civil understanding is different than allowing morons and illiterate mooks to pass 8th grade so they don't feel "left out".
Yeah freedom of speech and the right to vote for your leaders are probably not all they're cracked up to be.
Just preposterous as testing to vote. Same questions too! LOL :mrgreen:
You know, that comment would have been sarcasm many, many years ago, but now it's sad and true. We, as a Nation, have bastardized and manipulated the primary values of this country, and taken our advancements for granted and now, there is an infestation of apathy, ignorance, and plain stupidity that, when utilizing the Freedoms that make America great, makes America the butt of jokes world wide.
It been that way for the last 4 decades, where have you been?
It would be preposterous if everyone had knowledge of civics and this tactic was used to target specific groups. unfortunately, this tactic would be used to trim the fat hanging off our Civic-Duty-Asses.
Well I wasn't born for half of those last 4, but I've read about it.
Voting for the privileged only.
Hmmm.........I wonder why the founders never thought of that. Oh, they tell me a person used to have to own property, and blacks and women could not vote. Not smart enough don't you know. I guess they did think of it! LOL!
My guess is that is why your perspective is skewed.
Voting for those who know their political asshole from a hole in the ground.
And eliminate the conservative party from voting? I don't think they will go for it. LOL!
First of all, Americans back then EARNED their right to vote more than most these days. They fought and bled for their rights. Those minority groups pushed the bounds of what was acceptable and they worked their asses off. They were, for the most part, proud of their country.
LOL! Right, the blacks and women did nothing did they????
And once again, it's not targeting specific groups of people. Do driving tests discriminate between different ethnicities or women?
I can read books and research History and Civics. And it's a shame that I can see these things and others who have lived this long cannot.
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?