Tax cuts: A Simple Lesson In Economics
#31
Originally Posted by FUNKED1
Oooh the "Unamerican" card! You sound like a Bushie now.
I'd like to live a nation where leaders are chosen wisely. As long as we have idiots voting, it will never happen. Your principles are admirable but I've had an assfull of DNC/GOP tyranny, which is sustained by type of TV-brainwashed semiliterate drones that I seek to eliminate from the electorate via my system. 100 questions on economics, current affairs, recent history. If they can't get 60 right they don't get to vote.
I'd like to live a nation where leaders are chosen wisely. As long as we have idiots voting, it will never happen. Your principles are admirable but I've had an assfull of DNC/GOP tyranny, which is sustained by type of TV-brainwashed semiliterate drones that I seek to eliminate from the electorate via my system. 100 questions on economics, current affairs, recent history. If they can't get 60 right they don't get to vote.
#33
Originally Posted by njc200
1. Wow! Funked1, your unConstitutional, unAmerican ideas are unoriginal.
2. They have been deemed so for almost 40 years ...
3. along with most of your beliefs.
2. They have been deemed so for almost 40 years ...
3. along with most of your beliefs.
1. We already demonstrated that there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting my proposals.
2. Huh?
3. Needless ad hominem. You don't know crap about my beliefs. How about we stick to debating the issues instead of personal attacks? I realize it's hard for a Democrat, but please try.
#34
250,000-mile Club President
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bizerkeley
Posts: 4,770
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
Originally Posted by FUNKED1
Oooh it says it on the internets! It must be right!
After all, being a libertarian, you must be a strict constitutionalist, right Funked1?
#35
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by FUNKED1
You really want illiterate people voting?
-Chris
#36
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Answer the following, njc200:
So why can't ex-felons vote if they're American citizens and 100% rehabilitated?
Why are there going to be 5million+ citizens sitting at home on November 2nd?
So by your definition, voting is a right among all American citizen’s, correct? So why isn’t it the same for thing for a drivers license if it can be revoked? So you’d agree that having a drivers license is a right too?
So why can't ex-felons vote if they're American citizens and 100% rehabilitated?
Why are there going to be 5million+ citizens sitting at home on November 2nd?
So by your definition, voting is a right among all American citizen’s, correct? So why isn’t it the same for thing for a drivers license if it can be revoked? So you’d agree that having a drivers license is a right too?
#37
Originally Posted by psoper
Actually all of the references I made to articles in the Constitution of the United States refer to the "right to vote" .
After all, being a libertarian, you must be a strict constitutionalist, right Funked1?
After all, being a libertarian, you must be a strict constitutionalist, right Funked1?
#39
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by Salty
Answer the following, njc200:
So why can't ex-felons vote if they're American citizens and 100% rehabilitated?
Why are there going to be 5million+ citizens sitting at home on November 2nd?
So by your definition, voting is a right among all American citizen’s, correct? So why isn’t it the same for thing for a drivers license if it can be revoked? So you’d agree that having a drivers license is a right too?
So why can't ex-felons vote if they're American citizens and 100% rehabilitated?
Why are there going to be 5million+ citizens sitting at home on November 2nd?
So by your definition, voting is a right among all American citizen’s, correct? So why isn’t it the same for thing for a drivers license if it can be revoked? So you’d agree that having a drivers license is a right too?
About the Felons... how many times do we have to show that rights can be revoked and therefore it isn't true that anything revokeablt is not a right? Where is the confusion? Not being able to vote is just a continuing part of thier punishment, just as their right to freedom was revoked while they served their prison sentance. Oh that's right... you don't believe thaqt freedom is a right despite what that pesky Bill of Rights says.
-Chris
#41
Originally Posted by Salty
Answer the following, njc200:
So why can't ex-felons vote if they're American citizens and 100% rehabilitated?
So why can't ex-felons vote if they're American citizens and 100% rehabilitated?
Actually, its a states rights question. There are a lot of felons who can vote. Your making a blanket statement, that is untrue.
Originally Posted by Salty
Why are there going to be 5million+ citizens sitting at home on November 2nd?
Originally Posted by Salty
So by your definition, voting is a right among all American citizen’s, correct? So why isn’t it the same for thing for a drivers license if it can be revoked? So you’d agree that having a drivers license is a right too?
#42
Originally Posted by bassplayrr
Is illiteracy proof of a lack of knowledge and intelligence or could it be a lack of schools and means of edjucation in the area? My grandfather, one of the smartest people I have EVER met, only have a 7th grade edjucation level. He started a small paint company that he ran so successfully that he was able to sell it for millions in the late 80's. Book smarts(or lack thereof) have no real reflection of actual intelligence. Hell, isn't that what all you guys are always saying to stick up for Bushy?
-Chris
-Chris
#43
250,000-mile Club President
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bizerkeley
Posts: 4,770
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
Originally Posted by FUNKED1
Psoper, nice try, but no cigar. Just because it says the phrase "right to vote" doesn't mean that this right is universally guaranteed. Nowhere in the Consitution is there such a guarantee. In fact, you will notice the wording of the amendments concerning voting is very carefully chosen to allow exceptions to be made. If the authors had truly intended to guarantee universal voting rights they would have simply made an amendment stating that "The right to vote shall not be denied on any basis" or something similar.
To my reading of these, every mention of it has to do with protecting this right against it being denied, although there are some provisions where the states are given some leeway in their rules as they apply to criminals, but nowhere is voting discussed as being a privlege.
To salty's silly question comparing voting to driving; in being granted the privlege of getting a drivers license you give up some rights, like the right to some protections from search and seizure.
But being an american citizen over the age of 18 you have the right to vote, unless you have had that right revoked according to due process.
I just don't follow your logic......
#44
Originally Posted by FUNKED1
Do we really need this sort of ad hominem stuff in this thread? Moderator?
#45
Originally Posted by psoper
So what exactly do you think they mean by "right to vote" ?
To my reading of these, every mention of it has to do with protecting this right against it being denied, although there are some provisions where the states are given some leeway in their rules as they apply to criminals, but nowhere is voting discussed as being a privlege.
To my reading of these, every mention of it has to do with protecting this right against it being denied, although there are some provisions where the states are given some leeway in their rules as they apply to criminals, but nowhere is voting discussed as being a privlege.
All I'm saying is that there are protections of voting rights in the Constitution but they do not apply to the system I proposed. You can argue against it on moral or philosophical grounds (as Bassplayer has done), but there is no basis to argue against it on Consitutional ground (as you have done), and I thank you for not arguing against it with Ad Hominem attacks (as NJC200 has done).