The W
Views: 100042898
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 1242
The W - Current Events & Politics - What the Iraqi civilians can teach the Americans (Page 2)
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(2439 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (33 total)
Fletch
Cotechino








Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4368 days
Last activity: 4365 days
#21 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    See, I do have a problem with that. While the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and MANY similar documents are good in intent, they were written, in fact, by men. These are not holy documents, and they can be wrong in some aspect!


All of the above applies to your (and consequently, my)opinion. Welcome to the dining car of the Circular Logic Train. Next stop, Square 1.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    When the authors of those documents were alive and working, they were trying to fix a broken system. I think that the current system is on the verge of breaking (if not already). The Constitution is an outdated document, the government it outlines is full of corrupt, slimy individuals who care about nothing more than their own pockets and power (on both sides), and this supposedly malleable writ is now frozen because people take it as holy.


No amount of tinkering is going to save us from "corrupt, slimy, individuals who care about nothing more than their own pockets and power...". This is human nature, plain and simple.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    The whole "Right to vote, no matter what" was indeed a noble idea, I just think it was misguided.


Welcome to the New United States of America, Pool-Boy. We realize that the previous version was flawed, that's why we've removed all the "misguided" ideals of our original Constitution and replaced them with better ones that will enable us to run this country "a whole hell of a lot better"!

First, you'll be glad to know, voter registration is now only granted upon passage of our "Citizenship Test"! Only the brightest, elite minds will be voting now. Thank god the ignorant masses are out; we only need their tax money anyway.

Now, we hope you don't mind, but you're going to have to hand over any guns you may own to our "American Safety Commision". We came to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment, moreso than any other, was far too misguided to keep in our Constitution. Certainly there were those who could handle their "right" to bear arms, but overall letting the masses have access to such dangeorous implements of destruction was just too much. Things are better already!

Also, be careful what you say in public. When we were thinking about the Bill of Rights 2.0 we decided that the 1st Amendment, in effect, only serves to confuse the masses. Just think, all of these empty headed Joe-Six Packs sitting at home letting their weak minds be filled with the claptrap on the TV and the lies in the media. When you have all of these people making decision after decision just based on what Rosie or Rush told them to do you have a recipie for disaster! The only media outlets are now controlled by the government and it only employs those who pass our rigorous "United States Media" test. Hey, we can't have these stupid people getting all riled up and supporting stupid causes! That's why we needed this control, to make sure they support only what they need to. We know what's best for them, anyway.


Yeah. I'm being extreme.

Or am I? Just insert the words "right to vote" in the things above.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I don't think that anyone's right to vote should be taken away, I just think that the PRIVELEDGE of voting should be limited to those who can demonstrate that they would exercise the right in a responsible matter...


So... what you're saying is this: I don't want to take away X! I just want to decide who can have X. I don't see too much difference...


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I mean, you get fired for making bad decisions at work- why can't a voter be held accountable for their decision? And you know what? Anyone who wants to vote would be able to with a little effort. That is all I am asking!


The government doesn't pay me to be a good citizen. I pay the government to do a good job with my taxes. Why can't every taxpayer have the right to hold the government accountable for their performance? You have the roles reversed.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Clearly you have never HEARD Rush Limbaugh. The difference between Rosie and Rush is that Rush DOES offer equal time. He invites callers who are Liberal to call into his show and debate him. On many occasions he extends open invitations to Democrats to come on his show and discuss their position. At the same time, Rush will criticize a position, and invite those who disagree with him to call and explain their side. That IS equal time.


I disagree. He terms many liberals "seminar callers" for a reason.

The only time he's ever offered anything like equal time for a democrat is to say something like, "I said Clinton eats shit sandwiches, and that's not correct. The truth is, he doesn't like bread." That's Limbaugh's idea of fair time and setting the record straight.






Nolo tubare circulos meos! - Archimedes
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2028 days
Last activity: 1681 days
#22 Posted on
I listen to talk radio. I consider myself fairly conservative but I don't like a lot of the radio hosts. Rush likes to have people talk about how right he is. Micheal Medved believes there is a huge anti-Christion conspiracy. Micheal Savage is a complete assclown. He talks about himself half the time. Anyone who disagrees with him is a traitor and should rot in hell.
But Rosie was just as bad. The way she treated Tom Selleck. Her anti-gun bias while she has that right is BS since her bodygaurds that protect her and her kids are armed. I guess she doesn't want us poor crackers to have guns but rich liberal lesbians are OK. Donahoe the less said the better.
The point is that all of these people are paid lots of money to have people who agree with them listen to them. They shouldn't really be a basis for who anyone votes on. Take the info they give you and then decide for yourselves.



Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on
The point is that radio talk shows (including Rush) give open time by inviting opposition. All you have to do to fulfill the "Equal time" requirement is to offer it, and give it if accepted. Radio talk shows do this. Rosie did not- she invited no opposition.
And yeah, in a perfect world, people would form their own opinion, and simply use the media as a source of information. Unfortunatly, that is not the case.
Let me see if I get this right- the fact that everything written on paper is not holy means that we should just stick with what we have, because we obviously can't do better. Everyone has the right to vote because they pay taxes- no matter how inept and stupid they are. If they make a bad decision that seriously hurts society (and there have been many) we should not hold them accountable, even though they were responsible for making the decision...
Fletch, your problem is that you lack critical thinking skills. You can't go beyond an "All or nothing" mentality. How do you know that some of the things you mentioned in your "extreme sarcasm" piece might be better for this country?
One thing I think that the framers of the Constitution got right was the 2nd Ammendment. Unfortunatly, it is outdated and no longer applicable. Back when the Constitution was being worked out, the state governments maintained their own militias. When you called up volunteers to go and fight, they were really expected to bring their own guns, for the most part- the states could not afford to provide guns for everyone. The whole reasoning behind the 2nd Ammendment was to allow the States to maintain a standing army, so the federal government did not get too powerful. Well, it is clear that did not work too well. Today that ammendment is totally outdated. Personally I think there SHOULD be a new version of that amendment crafted, which would allow people to have SOME guns (handguns, shotguns, and rifles), but people have more powerful guns than they really need right now... It would be foolish to absolutly ban all guns but I personally see no reason that there cannot be controls on what weapons people are allowed to have....
The so-called "Freedom of Speech" ammendment is another one that has been completely twisted in its modern interpretation. The whole reason for that right was so that you could speak out against the government, and not be arrested and possibly executed. A good idea! But the things that are carried out and said in the name of "Free Speech" today disgust me sometimes. I mean, if you think about it, there really is not "Total" Free Speech. You can't say Fire! in a theater for no reason... you can't joke about bombs on airplanes-
The fact is that you HAVE to give up some "rights" in order for a society to function to its best possible potential. I mean, if we had the right to do whatever we pleased, we would exist in total anarchy now. There would be no roads, no cars, no computers, no advancements of any kind.
Granted, there is a balance... too few personal "Rights" is just as bad as too many. Right now, I think we are on the "Too many" side of that fine line. How can you possibly say that 200+ years ago, they suddenly got it right- wrote out the PERFECT answer to the PERFECT society, and put it in place as the form of government in the United States? They did a good thing for the time, but it is far from the best we can do...
So yeah, I still think that there are people too stupid out there to vote. And if you can't make a logical argument against that, and have to resort to grandstanding and "high and mighty humanitarian pontification" (in other words, you can't back up your arguments, Fletch) please make room for someone who can. I would like to hear a serious rebuttal, rather than "you are a moron Pool-Boy - everything is fine because the Constitution is SOOOOOO wonderful!"

(edited by Pool-Boy on 21.10.02 1546)


Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 1-4!
Hmmm... better than last year so far...
But then, why do I still want blood?
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 14 days
AIM:  
#24 Posted on
Well, I can think of one guy who might be too stupid to vote, but that's beside the point.



Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on
You crack me up OFB- because I am intelligent enough to form an opinion and to back it up, and you disagree with it, then I am one of those too dumb to vote...
The lack of logic astounds me :). This is why I get so frustrated talking to you people! You do not argue, you do not debate, you do not back up your beliefs. You name-call! And in your mind, that makes you right!
At least the comic in your sig is funny....



Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 2-4!
I am so confused....
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#26 Posted on
Rosie did not- she invited no opposition.

Didn't you see the above post where it said she had Tom Selleck on the show? That's a dissenting opinion.

Hey, I hate Rosie as much as the next guy (although I kind of like Donahue), and I also agree it's super hypocritical to be totally anti-gun and have your bodyguards packing, but when it comes down to it, she's not a political voice, she's an entertainer. Did you get all upset at the WWF when Jerry Lawler kept talking shit about Al Gore on the air without "equal time" given to talking shit about Bush?

I worry a lot more about people taking Rosie's bad advice about dieting and Tom Cruise and whatever else she talks about on her show than about guns or whatever. And really, if you find me someone that says "I voted for Al Gore because Rosie O'Donnell said so." My parents, sure. My pastor, maybe. A co-worker or friend, I can see. Rosie?

You can think of the country as a corporation and the voters as the Stockholders (you righties usually love this stuff, so I thought I'd try it). Sometimes the Stockholders vote idiots on to the Board who screw up the company. The company suffers. What happens? You can't take away their right to vote because they are invested in the company, no matter how stupid their decisions might be. They have to sell their stock first. Likewise, people in this country a) are invested in it and b) pay money to run it. Therefor, they get a say, no matter if you or I or anyone elsethinks they are too stupid or not. One share is one share. And in America, one citizen's heartbeat over 18 with no felony convictions is one share. Corporations don't make you pass an intelligence test to buy stock, money talks. Same here.

So what happens if the voters really ARE that dumb and screw the country up? Well, you can do what you do when shareholders screw up a company - sell your stock and get out. If you really think the citizens of America are THAT stupid that they've screwed up the country THAT bad, then you can take a hike and go live in a different country. Maybe even a country where only a certain, priviledged class are allowed to vote. North Korea perhaps, or maybe Pakistan. Me, I think our country has done pretty darn good for itself with the "everyone can vote" thing going on.

An anyway, if you advocate limiting the right to vote to "smart" people, what are your ideas for determining who gets to vote and who doesn't? High School graduate? College graduate (that's the new policy in Pakistan)? Whoever doesn't watch Rosie? Whoever you think ins smart enough? What?



Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#27 Posted on
Honestly, I agree that the logistics of determining who is "smart enough" to vote would be hard. I have to admit that I would rather have more "responsible" people voting than "smart," per se. The test I would recommend would be a simple multiple choice American History exam. A long one- maybe 300-500 questions.
First off- you would HAVE to be literate to take this test. This is important. At the risk of sounding like an asshole (sad how you have to worry about that now-a-days when you are not picking on anyone personally), I would rather the people who are decidion how the country should be run at least be able to read.
Second- the test would require some study. You simply can't VOTE nowadays without doing a little research, because there is just so much on the ballot every year you would have no way of hearing of.
And lastly- if every voter has a comprehensive understanding of history, they will be more informed about what your vote means. They will see the mistakes of the past and know what has been tried before. They will also know when a politicial is pulling the wool over their eyes by lying about things that happened in the past (this happens far more than I like).
ANYONE would be able to pass this test if they worked at it. It is not discriminating at all- it just sets a standard. "If you want to vote, you have to be able to pass this test." I do not see this as a hugely offensive idea.
As far as your US Government/Corperation analogy, though it is a good one, there is one minor flaw in your argument. The shareholders in a company with MORE money get a bigger voice in how the company is run. In other words, the better you are at making money, the more your voice is heard. It does not quite work that way as far as voting goes- there are those who pay FAR more in taxes than any other citizen, and they still only get one vote. I am not saying that should be any different- just pointing out that the comparision between the government and a corperation cannot be so easily drawn. A good thought though.



Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 2-4!
I am so confused....
Fletch
Cotechino








Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4368 days
Last activity: 4365 days
#28 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Let me see if I get this right - the fact that everything written on paper is not holy means that we should just stick with what we have, because we obviously can't do better.


I never said this. Neither did I use the word holy. What I *did* put forward was extreme examples of how every right and provision in the Bill of Rights could be considered misguided.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Fletch, your problem is that you lack critical thinking skills. You can't go beyond an "All or nothing" mentality.


One part of my job title is the word "analyst". I get paid plenty of money to think critically.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    How do you know that some of the things you mentioned in your "extreme sarcasm" piece might be better for this country?


How do any of us know for certain? How do you know that your ideas would fix everything that's wrong with the USA? What I *do* know is that I prefer most of what we have now than to what we could have. I'd rather have liberty than safety.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Personally I think there SHOULD be a new version of that amendment crafted, which would allow people to have SOME guns (handguns, shotguns, and rifles), but people have more powerful guns than they really need right now... It would be foolish to absolutly ban all guns but I personally see no reason that there cannot be controls on what weapons people are allowed to have...


But, but, but, Pool-Boy! In this day and age when terrorists can hijack a plane with box cutters, how can we be safe with ANY gun? Why would it be foolish to ban these guns when we have so many nitwits running around just waiting to hurt themselves or others?!


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    The so-called "Freedom of Speech" ammendment is another one that has been completely twisted in its modern interpretation. The whole reason for that right was so that you could speak out against the government, and not be arrested and possibly executed. A good idea! But the things that are carried out and said in the name of "Free Speech" today disgust me sometimes.


What if they don't disgust me? Who's the final arbiter here? The Constitution? No, that moldy old, unholy document was written by men and is therefore imperfect. Tradition? Well, no. Tradition is of man as well and therefore faulty. So how do we decide?


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    The fact is that you HAVE to give up some "rights" in order for a society to function to its best possible potential.


So how have we as a nation come to where we are today?


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    How can you possibly say that 200+ years ago, they suddenly got it right- wrote out the PERFECT answer to the PERFECT society, and put it in place as the form of government in the United States?


Good question. That's probably why I never said that.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I still think that there are people too stupid out there to vote. And if you can't make a logical argument against that, and have to resort to grandstanding and "high and mighty humanitarian pontification" (in other words, you can't back up your arguments, Fletch) please make room for someone who can.


Pool-boy, there is one statement of mine you have not answered. If someone pays taxes, why can't they vote? By the way, "because they are stupid" is not an answer. Not a good one, anyway.

But hey, if you are willing to pay my share of taxes then you can call me stupid and take my vote, and I'll be one happy idiot laughing all the way to the bank.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I would like to hear a serious rebuttal, rather than "you are a moron Pool-Boy - everything is fine because the Constitution is SOOOOOO wonderful!"


I never said, well, any of this. Prove that I have.

You however, said this:


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    This is why I get so frustrated talking to you people! You do not argue, you do not debate, you do not back up your beliefs. You name-call! And in your mind, that makes you right!


So far you have said the following about me:

That I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh, or if I do listen to him I don't "hear" him.
I lack critical thinking skills.
I am illogical.
That instead of providing any argument I instead resort solely to "high and mighty humanitarian pontification".

What have I said about you? If these are the rules you play by...



Nolo tubare circulos meos! - Archimedes
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on
Well, Fletch, all I can say is this- if your job is to be an analyst of any kind, you might want to brush up on those skills before heading back to work. If you look back at one of my previous points, I did, in fact, conceed your point about paying taxes. Exactly what role the taxpayer would pay in any change of government is something that I, frankly, have no answer for. Even though I claim to see a big problem in the way things are run now, does not mean that I know everything about how it should be solved. I am only offering a possible solution.
I will say this- again. This "test" I envision would not be impossible to pass. It would take work, yes, but just about anyone could do it. Now if one is too lazy to put forth the work to become a responsible voter, do they really deserve to complain about how their taxes are used? If you do not like it, and want to vote, put in the effort. Not an unreasonable request-
We all make these decisions, everyday Fletch. Not doing anything- just leaving things as they are IS making a decision. One of the sad things about today's society is that the way things are run really precludes any emergence of a real leader who could cross those pesky party lines and get people behind them for something better than what we have now. We are all lured to idolatry by our computers and TV and full bellies to realize that our growth as a society has ground to a hault. Yup- we do have a lot of great things. I do not think I am evil for thinking that we could be something better.
Yup- I have retaliated with some insults, Fletch... to you and others. Mostly I have been attacking those who see fit to respond to me with "You are an idiot" or something similar, without attacking my arguments with anything other than "You are wrong." You do it too, you just use better language and do so in a longer, more sarcastic manner. Why don't you answer your own question for me? How would you solve this, if leaving things as they are were not an option?



Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 2-4!
I am so confused....
Fletch
Cotechino








Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4368 days
Last activity: 4365 days
#30 Posted on
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Well, Fletch, all I can say is this - if your job is to be an analyst of any kind, you might want to brush up on those skills before heading back to work.


Tisk, tisk.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    If you look back at one of my previous points, I did, in fact, conceed your point about paying taxes. Exactly what role the taxpayer would pay in any change of government is something that I, frankly, have no answer for.


The first part you've said, the second part you really haven't. "People pay taxes, but they are stupid!" is not an answer.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Even though I claim to see a big problem in the way things are run now, does not mean that I know everything about how it should be solved. I am only offering a possible solution.


Spectacular. But for one who is now claiming to have only ideas you *have* been presenting everything as a 'fait accompli'.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I will say this - again.


Thank you sir, may I have another!


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Now if one is too lazy to put forth the work to become a responsible voter, do they really deserve to complain about how their taxes are used?


Yes! They deserve to becuase they paid taxes in the first place! I don't pay taxes for the right to live here or to be governed, I pay taxes to ensure that my government runs well. They do not employ me as a citizen, I employ them. And when an employer has an employee that does a poor job they should have every recourse to remove them, I do that by voting as do most people who vote. There are many who don't. In fact far too many. *Those* people have little room to grouse.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Not doing anything- just leaving things as they are IS making a decision.


I'm aware of this...


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    One of the sad things about today's society is that the way things are run really precludes any emergence of a real leader who could cross those pesky party lines and get people behind them for something better than what we have now.


Do I smell a run for office here, Pool-Boy? PB in '04! PB in '04!


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    We are all lured to idolatry by our computers and TV and full bellies to realize that our growth as a society has ground to a hault. Yup- we do have a lot of great things. I do not think I am evil for thinking that we could be something better.


Idolatry against what?

Who here has called you evil?


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Yup- I have retaliated with some insults, Fletch... to you and others.


Well then, let me be the first to welcome you down off your high horse.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Mostly I have been attacking those who see fit to respond to me with "You are an idiot" or something similar, without attacking my arguments with anything other than "You are wrong."


The only poster who has done anything like this is OFB. And it's debatable that even he has done that...


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    You do it too, you just use better language and do so in a longer, more sarcastic manner.


Prove it. Prove that the only thing I've done here is write paragraphs that do nothing but either a)call you an idiot or b)say only that you are wrong and provide nothing else of substance.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Why don't you answer your own question for me? How would you solve this, if leaving things as they are were not an option?


When did I ask this question?

Solve what? The fact that people are stupid?

I've already told you how I think! Where voting rights are concerned the system is fine and dandy. Has been since '65. I'm not going to come up with a solution to a problem that I don't think exists!

My time is better spent being a shitty analyst who does nothing but insult people.

(edited by Fletch on 22.10.02 0730)


Nolo tubare circulos meos! - Archimedes
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 14 days
AIM:  
#31 Posted on
Hey, all I did was find it horribly ironic that a guy who uses words like "Chineese" and "corperation" thinks that "stupid" people shouldn't vote.



Osama Bin Laden is an Uncle Tom.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#32 Posted on
I am feeling the love here-
You know, it is really hard to make any sort of debate on any issue when you come back and read short one line posts from people like OFB, doing nothing than hurling a little one line insult, or picking apart one of my posts trying to find an error, ANY error, that he can throw up in my face. Yeah, I misspell things from time to time. I am sorry that I type so fast because my brain moves even faster and I have a lot to say. And no, I do not feel like proofreading for 20 minutes everytime I post to see if I might have misspelled something. Let me ask you, OFB- do you HAVE an opinion of your own? Or isn't the little liberal glowing box giving you an opinion in regards to this subject?
Fletch- I do see a big problem brewing in the system as it is. We have Democrats bussing people to Minnesota to vote, because they have such a fast voter registration law, in an attempt to save the Democratic Canditate up there. We have that whole Torch mess. Katherine Harris in Florida is just as bad. And do not get me started on Clinton-
The fact is that a common voter is willing to overlook the most ridiculous incompotency and lawbreaking if a pretty enough picture is painted for them. And that IS a problem, no matter what "rights" they have.
What about children? In this country, you do not have the right to vote until you are 18. We tax minors every day. Whether they are purchasing something in a store, or a 16 year old with an after-school job. We may not tax them as much, but the government sure has its hands in their pockets too. If we can deny these taxpayers the vote, why not others who do not demonstrate the capacity to make an intelligent decision at the ballot. Either that, or totally restructure our voting system, so that the voter really only votes on local issues, and a representative to vote for farther reaching issues, and so on.

As far as insulting you goes, Fletch, I apologize. I had the defensiveness kicked into too high a gear. I am sorry.

Nope- no run for office for me- like I said- a real leader would get crushed by both parties before he ever made it past the primaries...



Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 2-4!
I am so confused....
Fletch
Cotechino








Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4368 days
Last activity: 4365 days
#33 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    The fact is that a common voter is willing to overlook the most ridiculous incompotency and lawbreaking if a pretty enough picture is painted for them. And that IS a problem, no matter what "rights" they have.


I think if I want to write in 'Caligula's Horse' for every candidate then I should be able to. It's my vote to use well or waste, for I bought it. But I think it's safe to say that you and I are at the point where we are willing to agree to disagree on this one...


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    What about children? In this country, you do not have the right to vote until you are 18. We tax minors every day. Whether they are purchasing something in a store, or a 16 year old with an after-school job. We may not tax them as much, but the government sure has its hands in their pockets too. If we can deny these taxpayers the vote, why not others who do not demonstrate the capacity to make an intelligent decision at the ballot.


I agree. If one brings in an income and therefore pays income taxes, then why shouldn't they have the right to vote? Very Good point.

And I was with you until the very last sentence... But as I said previously, we're going to have to agree to disagree.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    As far as insulting you goes, Fletch, I apologize. I had the defensiveness kicked into too high a gear. I am sorry.


No sweat.



Nolo tubare circulos meos! - Archimedes
Pages: Prev 1 2
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: PETA Getting Theirs...
Next thread: Sen. Wellstone killed in plane crash
Previous thread: CNN semi-stupidity
(2439 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Prayers are with all of our troops.
The W - Current Events & Politics - What the Iraqi civilians can teach the Americans (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 0.174 seconds.