The W
Views: 99018675
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.9.14 2051
The W - Current Events & Politics - Andy Rooney tells stupid people NOT to vote. (Page 2)
This thread has 40 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.48
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(1075 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst








Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.71
How exactly would you even determine how someone is "qualified" to vote? The age limit of 18 is fine enough, we don't need any more restrictions. Oh, and screw those felons.

Besides, even if people think they know everything about the issues, they're still prone to make stupid decisions. No, this isn't a jab at anyone in this forum, just a basic human flaw of being so confident in a basic mindset that we shut out the other side sometimes.
SlipperyPete
Bauerwurst








Since: 13.8.04

Since last post: 3565 days
Last activity: 3565 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.69
    Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
    How exactly would you even determine how someone is "qualified" to vote?
If you can't figure out the complexities of a punch card ballot, that would be a good start. Maybe Andy's just hoping to avoid another Florida mess.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1281 days
Last activity: 47 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.76
I think a real fundamental difference here is that most of you view voting as a right. I view it as a duty, something that is supposed to be handled with a great deal of seriousness and thought.

And just because I suggested a new qualification for voting (a test) does not mean I think we should throw out the old ones (age). No, I do not think a 7 year old should be able to vote. It is possible for both to coexist.

And I do think it is sad that a school kid would do better on a quiz about our government than an average voter...

There are a lot of good points raised here. Maybe a test isn't the best idea in the world, but I do think there is a lot wrong with the system we have now. We have changed a lot since the Constitution was first drafted, and often not for the better. The system we have now makes it virtually impossible to accomplish anything, or fix any problem. Look at Social Security - whether you like it or not, the program itself is broken. But if you make any attempt to fix it, you are portrayed as wanting to steal medicine from old people. And it WORKS. It is even more pronounced in local issues. Every single time a government entity wants more money, a ballot prop comes up that is raising money for "Fire, police, and emergency services." Real heart-tugger issues. But that money always ends up going for something else, and then a year down the road, emergency services need money again. Why is it that the most important things our government is responsible for always seem to be hurting for money, but other, less important programs always have enough tax dollars? You never see a ballot proposition, say, looking to spend money on a poll to figure out why the "world hates us," or the thousands of other idiotic things our government spends money on.

Then there are the quick fixes. Back with Reagan, we had an illegal immigration problem. The solution? Amnesty. But some people didn't like that, so a compromise was reached. The government would fix the problem that allows the illegals to enter the country, and the ones here would be given amnesty. A clean slate. Well, one happened, but not the other, and now Illegal immigration is a bigger problem than ever. We here in the LA area have had SIX emergency rooms close this year because they can't afford to keep treating the illegal aliens any longer. But the solutions being presented this time around? Sound a lot like the ones back in the 80s. And no one is arguing about how to keep the illegals out, they are arguing about how to give the ones here amnesty. And no one is complaining!

And don't get me started about the party line squabbling. I tell some people I am voting against the Republican congressman in my district this year, and I suddenly become the anti-Christ. Elections have long since stopped being about the best person for the job, and are now all about what letter is next to your name. Even the presidential race - I mean, look at John Kerry. A lot of stink has been made lately about his speech in 1997 where he basically said something needs to be done in Iraq, if diplomacy fails, as it has been, we need to use force, and if the UN won't go with us, we should go it alone. Now he believes essentially the opposite of that. Why? Because his opponent agreed with his original position, and you can't run against a Republican and AGREE with them. So what we are getting are dog and pony show campaigns, where those running for office aren't presenting any actual real ideas, only saying what they think people want to hear, and hoping that they don't accidentally say the same thing as their opponent. It would be funny, if the stakes weren't so high.

So what is the problem? Are we too big? I mean, really, democracy works best when you know the people, intimately, that you are voting for. "Oh Bob down the street? He would make a great mayor/councilman. " Even people who have little knowledge of the workings of actual government can usually judge whether someone close to them would be a good leader.

I could probably go on all day about this, and I have a ton of different ideas, but it is all pretty impractical (since most all of them involve tossing out the constitution and starting over- something that won't happen in my lifetime), and this post is long enough as it is.

So perhaps a lot of you are right - a test itself is a bad idea, given our current system. But I don't believe in the infallibility of that document - I think there is always a better way. And just because people have a right to be free, does not mean that we have discovered the best way to run our government.



Still on the Shelf.com

Updated Weekly
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    And just because I suggested a new qualification for voting (a test) does not mean I think we should throw out the old ones (age).


They used to have tests, Pool-Boy. As recently as in my very young childhood. You had to be able to answer a question or two about the constitution or write your senators names down or recite the Pledge.

The problem with that is that it is ALL ABOUT keeping people who are NOT in your social or economic class from their right as citizens.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Article [XIX].
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


do you get what the constitution says? Voting is not a duty, not a privilege - it's a right of citizenship.

Andy rooney just wants REPUBLICANS to not have the vote.



Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1281 days
Last activity: 47 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.76
I do not know how clear I have to make it, but I do not view the Constitution as a holy document. I believe, in many cases, that it could be improved upon. Quoting me passages from the constitution that I already know means little to me - it is NOT holy text! I am well aware what is written there, but where the constitution says voting is a right, I disagree. Are we at a point where we can question and debate governmental styles from Communism to Fascism to Monarchy, but heaven forbit you suggest something is wrong with the high holy Constitution? It may be the law of the land, but just because it is written down there, doesn't make it a force of nature. I think that concept of "the right to vote" is catching up to us, and leading us down a very dangerous road. We have a voting populace whose knowledge of the workings of the government barely scratches the surface, who allow politicians to do pretty well whatever they want, as long as they are being TOLD the right thing. I view it as a broken system, I don't care what the constitution says.

And as I said, I am not firm in my opinion that testing is the solution. And yes, testing to vote was a way of keeping the uneducated from voting. I am not an idiot. I am well aware of the history. But "testing" is not my point. I feel there is a problem with the voting system today, and that is what I am debating. Maybe testing ISN'T the answer. But something out there has to be better than the way it is being done now, testing was just one suggestion.

So what if Rooney meant he thought Republicans should stay home? The dude may be a lunatic, but he accidentally stumbled upon a very real problem in our country, the moronic way people exercise their "right" to vote. I maintain this is slowly killing our country, one tiny step at a time.

Look, I think it is a noble idea - a society where every individual has a say in how the government is run. But that is impractical. Even the drafters of the Constitution saw this, and that is why we have the representative system we have today. Hence, we are somewhere in the middle of "being ruled," and ruling ourselves. Whose to say they balanced that perfectly? I think the needle could mabe be slid over a few notches...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 28.9.04 2050)


Still on the Shelf.com

Updated Weekly
Hogan's My Dad
Andouille








Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 16 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.14
Hadda love how he cited wrestling fans as the example of stupid people.

Rooney is amazingly bitter and too lazy to check facts, and serves no purpose. So he fits in perfectly on 60 Minutes.

Missed it, was watching Heat. Must mean I'm a retard.



Hot Virgins-The World's Most Steadily Shrinking Commodity
Crimedog
Boerewors








Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2675 days
Last activity: 2665 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.98
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    "I do not know how clear I have to make it, but I do not view the Constitution as a holy document. I believe, in many cases, that it could be improved upon. Quoting me passages from the constitution that I already know means little to me - it is NOT holy text! I am well aware what is written there, but where the constitution says voting is a right, I disagree."

    Hoo boy. So then, who gets to decide who gets to vote? You? Me? The current ruling party? Maybe we could have some people get together and interview potential voters. But then how do you determine the criteria? I don't know much about quantum physics, so obviously a quantum physicist would think I'm too stupid to vote. But I bet that your average quantum physicist couldn't convince me that he's on my level when it comes to history.

    Voting IS a right AND a privilege. If you start taking voting rights away because of arbitrary reasons _ and "intelligence" is an arbitrary reason _ then it's a real short jump to basing it on things like gender, or skin color or "I just don't like you."

    Voting rights in the Constitution have been changed over the years. And the way it's done now is about as close to being absolutely fair as we're going to get. I fully support the right of stupid people, people of average intelligence and super geniuses to vote. Seems fair enough to me.


    "Are we at a point where we can question and debate governmental styles from Communism to Fascism to Monarchy, but heaven forbit you suggest something is wrong with the high holy Constitution?"

    The word you are looking for is "forbid", not "forbit." Since you used the wrong word, you're obviously not smart enough to vote. See the slippery slope you're standing on, here?

    "It may be the law of the land, but just because it is written down there, doesn't make it a force of nature. I think that concept of "the right to vote" is catching up to us, and leading us down a very dangerous road. We have a voting populace whose knowledge of the workings of the government barely scratches the surface, who allow politicians to do pretty well whatever they want, as long as they are being TOLD the right thing. I view it as a broken system, I don't care what the constitution says."

    Hi, we're the police. Want to let us in and we'll have a look around? Don't worry about that whole "unreasonable search and seizure" thing. We view it as a broken system. While we're at it, we're going to send some soldiers over to live in your house.

    "And as I said, I am not firm in my opinion that testing is the solution. And yes, testing to vote was a way of keeping the uneducated from voting. I am not an idiot. I am well aware of the history. But "testing" is not my point. I feel there is a problem with the voting system today, and that is what I am debating. Maybe testing ISN'T the answer. But something out there has to be better than the way it is being done now, testing was just one suggestion."


    What's wrong with the way it's done now? If you meet the basic requirements to vote, you can vote. It's completely up to you to decide who to vote for, what issues to vote for or against and even whether or not you want to vote. That's freedom. If someone starts telling people whether or not they can vote, then what's to stop them from telling people who to vote for? Or dragging them out of the house at gunpoint and watching them pull the lever to make sure they're doing it right?


    "So what if Rooney meant he thought Republicans should stay home? The dude may be a lunatic, but he accidentally stumbled upon a very real problem in our country, the moronic way people exercise their "right" to vote. I maintain this is slowly killing our country, one tiny step at a time."

    This is just stupid. Tell me how, exactly, someone having the right to walk in to their polling place and vote for whoever or whatever they want is killing our country _ a country that bases its political system on that very principle.

    "Look, I think it is a noble idea - a society where every individual has a say in how the government is run. But that is impractical. Even the drafters of the Constitution saw this, and that is why we have the representative system we have today. Hence, we are somewhere in the middle of "being ruled," and ruling ourselves. Whose to say they balanced that perfectly? I think the needle could mabe be slid over a few notches..."

    Thereby creating a pure "ruling class", in which only those people that meet a set of qualifications set down by the people in power can join the ruling class. That's kind of what we were trying to get away from with that whole American Revolution thing.

    As for the representative system, it has nothing at all to do with limiting the rights of individuals to decide how the country is run. Instead, it's designed to make sure every state _ regardless of how small _ has a say in the way things are run.

    You obviously disagree with the current system, and that's fine. You're absolutely within your rights to do so. So says the Constitution, by the way. However, what you're suggesting is, quite frankly, a little bit scary. It's obvious that you consider yourself smart enough to be guaranteed the right to vote. Here's my question: How would you feel if somebody else disagrees?
Iago
Chourico








Since: 17.2.04
From: Eugene, Oregon

Since last post: 3072 days
Last activity: 2374 days
AIM:  
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
Well maybe if elections were dominated by fact schewing sound bites an uninformed populace wouldn't be a potential danger. But then it's ALWAYS been a potential danger. I don't like, or feel comfortable that there are people who don't make a genuine effort to understand the process and it's ramifications, and that these same people vote. But ya know what? I get over it. As stated by others, it's kinda hard to draw a line when you start preventing people from voting. And it certainly isn't all in the spirit of democracy. The age limit is sufficient.

More importantly this is a case where the right (to vote) is far more imporant than the people exercising it.






I've got many character flaws, humility isn't one.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1281 days
Last activity: 47 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.76
I really am loving how some people are misinterpreting what I say here. Did I ever suggest that we should abandon the "unlawful search and seizure" protections?

And oh my heavens, I had a minor typo in a long post. Gee golly, that just kills my whole argument.

Truth be told, my perfect voting system would involve highly localized elections of representatives, who would then elect leaders for regional posts. This is one of the reasons I am so much in favor of states rights and the Electoral College.

To that point - that is a perfect example of how the current system is slowly killing us. As it is, we have national elections for people who campaign on issues that should be LOCAL. Education is not a national concern, for example. Neither are roads. Why should the federal government have a say in issues that are best determined locally? Instead we have all of these programs diverted to the federal level, where they are far more ineffective, and less responsive.

In my ideal system (which I recognize as totally impossible, I know this), people would only directly elect local representatives - people from THEIR communities who know their issues. Even now, your vote in a local election is far more important than any Presidential vote you cast. But what gets the attention? You got it, Federal. Meanwhile, you have city council members who are too busy passing resolutions on national affairs to do their jobs and make sure the potholes get filled, and a citizenry too busy worrying about how John Kerry won his purple hearts to notice. If we elected a local official to represent a region in a national election (or you could even add another level in there), the voter's attention would be focused where it SHOULD be, in their own city. Your average voter today has a general idea what is going on in the Presidential Election, but if you asked them who was running against their congressman, you would be lucky if they even know who their congressman was. That is ass backwards, if you ask me, but it is exactly how the politicians like it. Regional problems on a federal level get ignored - that is a plain and simple fact. Immigration is a key issue here in the southwest, but border patrol is a federal issue. But will the federal government enforce the law? Hell no - you have Republicans in the pockets of corporations who like the cheap labor, and Democrats who insist that any action to maintain the border is racist. And will the Congress step in and make certain the border is enforced? Of course not - we can put all of the pressure we want on local representatives here, but the average Joe in Cleveland (or any other region) doesn't give a rat's ass about our immigration problem, and there isn't enough representatives scared for their jobs to make a difference. In the meantime, our freeways are getting clogged, our emergency rooms are getting closed left and right, and local, unskilled wages are being depressed because American citizens have to compete with undocumented workers for low wage jobs. And it sure as hell isn't getting any better the way things are done now...

If more importance were placed on local elections instead of national, it would satisfy just about all of your complaints with my idea. Everyone would still have the right to vote. Everyone would continue to be represented in the larger government system. You don't like how your rep has voted? Vote him out. That is the way things are supposed to be NOW, and it isn't working out that way.

Look, I am not pretending to know all the answers, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see there are problems. I think it is foolish in general to take the position that "It is in the Constitution, therefore, it is the best way." There is no need to get offended by ANY of this. Of course I am not in favor of creating a "ruling class." Fucking of course not! And just because I think that the vast majority of Americans these days are total morons when it comes to casting votes these days does not make me evil, or a proponent of a dictatorship. I'm just presenting ideas here, nothing more.

While I am at it (if it were up to me) I would completely abolish the party system. Or at least radically alter it. The idiotic 2 party system we have now totally stifles any real exchange of ideas, and makes our politicians more loyal to their party than the well being of their nation. It is pretty sickening, actually...



Still on the Shelf.com

Updated Weekly
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 72 days
Last activity: 2 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.85
As far as a national system of roads, I kind of like my interstate highway system.

It's never a good idea to throw out the states' rights argument. However, in an argument in favor of testing voters, it's not entirely out of place. Perhaps a poll tax at the same time would really complete the picture.

Then, there is the unrelated and irrelevant (to this thread) crack at illegal immigration (BTW, if you like, I'm happy to take that issue to another forum again).

The issue about representatives is more about gerrymandering and the fact that it is nearly impossible to vote out a congressperson because of the way the districts are set up. This constitutes an entirely different issue than stupid people voting.

Moreoever, anything (and I do mean anything) that attempts to take away the vote from the 'stupid' does create a voting class, if not an actual ruling class (as Tim pointed out very eloquently), no matter how you define stupid.

Lastly, eliminating political parties to foster the exchange of ideas is a brilliant example of irony. Why not just simply dissolve any organization or business that hinders the 'free and open exchange of ideas', regardless of their rights to exist or legal standing.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 12 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.13
Stupid people have been voting for over 200 years now and our country hasnt self destructed.

Why change now?



Thank you for your irrelevant opinion.

Doe, Ray, Me, Fa, So, La, TITO SANTANA!
Cerebus
Knackwurst








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74
Wasn't the original idea behind the Constitution supposed to be that they were supposed to throw it out and make a new one every few years?

Honestly, it was written over 200 years ago using wording we don't even use any more. Instead of having a court interpret what they think it means, why not just toss it out and write a new one.

I see no reason why we can't have naturalized, high school graduates, over the age of eighteen who can name you the 3 branches of our government with a steady income and never having been convicted of a felony, be the ones who elect our president. What's wrong with that?



Cerebus: RIP 1977-2004.

"What do you think it's like being created by a manic-depressive, paranoid schizophrenic, hypochondriac, misogynist with delusions of grandeur and a messiah complex?"
Nuclear Winter
Boudin rouge








Since: 9.11.03
From: Bedford, Michigan

Since last post: 171 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.50
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    Wasn't the original idea behind the Constitution supposed to be that they were supposed to throw it out and make a new one every few years?


The idea wasn't to make a new one every few years, it was to make a new one when the old one doesn't work anymore.

Personally, I think our current Constitution is working just fine.




You, watching this at home, worship me! I command you! Become my willing sprawls and live eternally! Oh, the sweet sublime feeling of complete obediance to your Evil Master! Come serve me, the Prince of Darkness, I command it! Hear me! Obey me! OBEY ME!
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    I see no reason why we can't have naturalized, high school graduates, over the age of eighteen who can name you the 3 branches of our government with a steady income and never having been convicted of a felony, be the ones who elect our president. What's wrong with that?


What's wrong with that is that your proposal is akin to swift's "A Modest Proposal" in light of the changes it would be to our system.

Are you saying then that only the educated can vote? That only those who are as (allegedly) smart as you can vote?


Who then, will represent the dumb people? And why should a politician do anything for the people who haven't completed high school.

And how long before it moves to College? Then to Post-Graduate degrees?

No. No. A thousand times no.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry





Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 12 hours
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.13
Damn, knew it wasnt going to be too long before somebody dragged out a Patrick Henry quote!

Anyhow, another flaw with the list you gave cerebus is this:

naturalized? People BORN here cant vote now? Just Naturalized citizens?

High school graduates? I quit school after three classes I had taken in Mississippi didnt have equivelent classes in Pennsylvania and thus, I didnt get credit for them, I was told I would have to go to summer school to get my diploma so, I bailed, with a 3.75 GPA and joined the Navy instead of spending from January until August in school, when all my friends had graduated in June. So, I shouldnt be able to vote?

Over the age of eighteen (I AGREE) who can name you the 3 branches of our government(WHY NOT ASK THEM HOW TO FIX A FUEL INJECTOR, OR BALANCE A CHECKBOOK OR BAKE A CAKE, ALL MUCH MORE USEFULL SKILLS TO SOCIETY THAN SPEWING OUT 6TH GRADE GOVERNMENT CLASS FACTS?) with a steady income (LEAVES FULL TIME STUDENTS OUT AS WELL) and never having been convicted of a felony (I TOTALLY ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE WITH THIS ONE), be the ones who elect our president.

Because, like it or not, there are people who will always be smarter than YOU (and me) so when would they be stopped from tellng me and you we couldnt vote too?



Thank you for your irrelevant opinion.

Doe, Ray, Me, Fa, So, La, TITO SANTANA!
Cerebus
Knackwurst








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74
What's so bad in feeling that if you're gonna vote for something such as the President of the United States, then the voter should have SOME knowledge as to WHAT IT MEANS to BE President of the United States.

Wouldn't NOT being able to decide who you leader is due to you not knowing who he is and what he stands for make you WANT to learn more about it and become more knowledgeable.

Naturalized was a goof on my part, I thought I changed that... my bad. I meant to say ONLY people born here should be able to vote. Now, I know this just sounds stupid, but bare with me. Why should some border hopping alien, who is now suddenly a legal citizen, be allowed to choose our nations leader. They're really only here cause they'll make more money and take more jobs away from the people already here who can't find work. I've work construction, and we used to get day labor guys for little stuff like helping do clean up or big stuff like mixing 800 bags of concrete in one day (THAT was an experience!) and I remember that a lot of the guys they sent us were mostly drunks or guys that lost higher paying job to lower waged employees. I felt bad for one of those groups and it WASN'T the drunks. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I heard how someone lost a good job to someone else who could barely speak English. That's another one, if you can't speak English, you shouldn't vote. Hell, you don't even deserve to be here, honestly... that's just how I feel; call me an asshole but that's just the way it should be. I remember some time back that there were some people trying to get Spanish as the official 'language' of Florida... how fucking stupid IS THAT, I ask you... well, any ways, yeah.

Being in the military would certainly cancel out something like a high school diploma. Unfortunately, that little piece of paper does carry a bit of weight, you know. most companies won't hire you with one, or it's equivalent, and some are even upping that to a college degree or at least some secondary schooling. Before I left Hollywood Video, I remember getting a memo saying that we were to only hire high school graduates. McDonald's, I've been told even does the same thing now... MCDONALD'S of all freaking places. Why would you NEED an education to flip a burger or take slightly brown french fries out of vegetable oil.

If you have a steady income, then you pay taxes. If you pay taxes, you damn well BETTER be voting cause if not, why are you wasting all that money you give to the government.

My qualifications for voting isn't so much a mandatory list. More like a A), B), C) list, where if you meet at least two thirds of the list, then you can vote.



Cerebus: RIP 1977-2004.

"What do you think it's like being created by a manic-depressive, paranoid schizophrenic, hypochondriac, misogynist with delusions of grandeur and a messiah complex?"
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Damn, knew it wasnt going to be too long before somebody dragged out a Patrick Henry quote


I had a good john Adams one too. Shoot, how can we even think of this when as recently as the greaking 1960s we were poll taxing people away from the booth.

i mean, I am a pretty conservative guy. But I can't think of ONE negative to everyone in the country voting in every election.

I don't give a crap if they vote for John f'n kerry just because he reminds them fondly of Fred Gwynn or for Dubya because they wished they had thought of the National Guard back in the 60s. Or if they vote for one or the other because of their complex economic plan.

I just want everyone to vote. I'm willing to trust the electorate with my life and my sacred honor - to paraphrase another guy from back in the day.



Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
Crimedog
Boerewors








Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2675 days
Last activity: 2665 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.98
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    What's so bad in feeling that if you're gonna vote for something such as the President of the United States, then the voter should have SOME knowledge as to WHAT IT MEANS to BE President of the United States.

    Wouldn't NOT being able to decide who you leader is due to you not knowing who he is and what he stands for make you WANT to learn more about it and become more knowledgeable.

    Naturalized was a goof on my part, I thought I changed that... my bad. I meant to say ONLY people born here should be able to vote. Now, I know this just sounds stupid, but bare with me. Why should some border hopping alien, who is now suddenly a legal citizen, be allowed to choose our nations leader.


Because every single one of us, with the exception of full-blooded Native Americans, is descended from a border-hopping alien?

Man, I don't know what caused you to go off the deep end there, but that statement and your later rant about "them durn unliterate latins" sure makes you sound like you would have no problem with someone saying "Okay folks. Only white guys get to vote now. Sorry ladies and other undesirables." Your beliefs are your beliefs, but that last post was a little bit creepy.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1281 days
Last activity: 47 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.76
I will say that in my experience, those "border hopping aliens" are better citizens than almost all of the natural born Americans when it comes to voting. Well, the ones who came here through legal channels anyway. They are excited about voting, get immersed in the process, and could probably put most of us to shame here with their knowledge of even LOCAL issues.

Hell, that kind of person is an ideal voter to me...



Still on the Shelf.com

Updated Weekly
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 12 hours
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.13
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I will say that in my experience, those "border hopping aliens" are better citizens than almost all of the natural born Americans when it comes to voting. Well, the ones who came here through legal channels anyway. They are excited about voting, get immersed in the process, and could probably put most of us to shame here with their knowledge of even LOCAL issues.

    Hell, that kind of person is an ideal voter to me...


Yet, you advocate not letting them vote?

Doesnt Joe Average Naturalized citizen have to past a TEST about our nation? What test did YOU pass to be a citizen? Being born here? If that is your only qualification of being a citizen, I believe the border hopper has one up on you!



Thank you for your irrelevant opinion.

Doe, Ray, Me, Fa, So, La, TITO SANTANA!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 4.48
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Scalia says "More Orgies!"
Next thread: The Presidential Debate Drinking Game
Previous thread: Crawford, TX newspaper endorses Kerry
(1075 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Sad update - Governor O'Bannon passes away.
- OlFuzzyBastard, Indiana Governor Hospitalized (2003)
Related threads: CSI(nise): NY - Listen Up! - CBS says sorry - More...
The W - Current Events & Politics - Andy Rooney tells stupid people NOT to vote. (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.165 seconds.