Someone should be able to vote if they are a citizen. Period. No tests, no screening.
So people under the age of 18 should be given the vote? What about convicted felons? The clinically insane?
We already have tests to determine if someone can vote. Is denying a 17 year old better, the same, or worse than denying a 45 year old who can't read the ballot?
We already have tests to determine if someone can vote. Is denying a 17 year old better, the same, or worse than denying a 45 year old who can't read the ballot?
It depends on what you define as a "voting age" citizen. Children under the age of 18 are looked at in a different light by the law. They are not charged as adults in criminal cases. They are almost always assumed to be too young to comprehend law and are treated as such. However, an illiterate 45 is a different case. Just because he can't read a the sign to the bathroom doesn't mean he doesn't know how to use it. Are you saying that if an illiterate kills someone he isn't responsible for his actions because he couldn't read the law? Do I need to remind you of the literacy tests used to discriminate against blacks during the early to mid 20th century? The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made this practice illegal. Done deal.
However, contrary to popular belief, voting is not a guaranteed right in the U.S. Currently, it is up to the states to decided who can vote. There are amendments which prevent the states from limiting the right to vote based on several issues, thus expanding it. A new bill being passed through Congress right now would make voting a fundamental right. HJR 28.
Yes, too many people in this country are suffraging with their right to vote. Please help put an end to these poor peoples problems and suffraging.
cue Sally Struthers...
Notice how many people on the left prefer "progressive" over "liberal"? I think the word progressive has been misused in the media to mean something that it should not. How is a "progressive" tax system progressive? Because you want to make some people pay an unequal share?
I'm talking purely about social issues, in which case I hold a libertine position. Economics are far too complex to be classified in such simply nomenclature.
I'm talking purely about social issues, in which case I hold a libertine position. Economics are far too complex to be classified in such simply nomenclature.
I'm socially liberal -> "Get the government out of my personal/private life."
and I'm economically conservative -> "Get the government out of my wallet."
Why is it that both philosophies I take are opposites (adjective) yet the sentiment is the same? i.e. "get the govt out..."
Why is it that both philosophies I take are opposites (adjective) yet the sentiment is the same? i.e. "get the govt out..."
Because both are coming from a point of history where the few had control over the many. The purpose of a "liberal" government is to prevent the abuse of the many by the few. Where we were a century ago was an abusive situation to people who worked and on the environment.
Are you suggesting than that conservatives are for the little man? "to prevent the abuse of the few by the many"???
I've not heard it stated in such an obtuse fashion. I've generally heard this as the prevention of mob rule. Why shouldn't, in a pure democracy, people vote that all of your property is now confiscated and the property of the state, to be doled out to the deserving?
I'm talking purely about social issues, in which case I hold a libertine position. Economics are far too complex to be classified in such simply nomenclature.
I'm socially liberal -> "Get the government out of my personal/private life."
and I'm economically conservative -> "Get the government out of my wallet."
Why is it that both philosophies I take are opposites (adjective) yet the sentiment is the same? i.e. "get the govt out..."
I'm not assuming anything. Most Republicans clearly state their positions on issues. If most Republicans are against abortion and gay marriage, or are pro faith-based initiatives, then I fundamentally disagree with most Republicans.
If the majority of Republicans support regressive or conservative social policies, then it is perfectly fair to call the Republican party conservative or regressive.
I entirely agree with you. However, I think that the main reason for my mentality of "Lets not throw rocks at the beehive" is mostly attributed to me being in high school--and when I bring up any criticism of anything like this, I either alienate people who disagree with me (which is all of like three people who understand the issues being discussed) or, most often, people do not even know what I'm talking about, the angle I'm coming from, or most difficult, the inside jokes I allude to that are all in the Geeknights part of my life.
And have I ever not had equal misgivings regarding the Democrats? While the latter are certainly closer in some minor ways to my own personal ideologies, both major political parties in the United States sicken me. The Democrats just sicken me a little less and over issues I care a little less about.
Do I need to remind you of the literacy tests used to discriminate against blacks during the early to mid 20th century? The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made this practice illegal. Done deal.
Precisely what I meant on my comments in regards to the South.
when I bring up any criticism of anything like this, I either alienate people who disagree with me or, most often, people do not even know what I'm talking about
Please, do not let this disuade you. I realize that finding social acceptance is very important in the high school years, but you'll find it really means nothing later on. You want to argue these points. You want to push your horizons. Don't hold back just for the sake of others who might not be as curious or quick. "Don't throw rocks at the beehive" will cripple you.
When shown in that light it makes me seem disillusioned, which actually totally seems plausible. However what I really meant, and what I now do (although to too often in class), is choose my battles. In the context of Rym, save any Rym-storm borne upon me, I just was saying that it is funny most of the time to stereotypically refer to Republicans as backwards and Democrats as forwards, (or however you want to slanderous-ly portray them), but ultimately, it doesn't get very much done, or give you much legitimacy, if you go on the "rule of thumb" to be that stereotype. However, Rym's caveat really fixed that issue.
In regards to high school on the other hand...I really can afford to always be throwing rocks. Most arguments fall on deaf ears, which isn't a big deal. The only bone I pick with people is for them to be critical thinkers, it doesn't matter if they don't have an opinion on DRM, evolution, education*, social things, whatever, just as long as they look at the world with active reasoning.
*Something hilarious happened Wednesday in my school system, which I think will best be addressed in the Secondary Education thread
I initially resisted the urge to say something about Limbaugh, because I know everyone must be tired of hearing about how much I hate him, but this is too good. I was actually listening when he said this, so I can tell you that the quotes come directly from the show.
If this is his argument, it shows that he's either desperate, stupid, or high (again). The line of reasoning has my vote for the worst logic ever. Using the same logic, we could say, "I don't believe in ________, because God wouldn't allow such a horrible thing to exist.", and fill in the blank with any horrible thing from breast cancer to sharks with laser beams on their heads.
Comments such as those remind me of this old joke:
A flood is coming but a very devout man decides to stay in his home. After several hours of torrential rain a large dump truck comes by his house. A man from the town gets out and knocks on the door.
"Sir, we are evacuating the town, please get in the back of the truck so we can get you to safety." "I'm not leaving, God will protect me."
The truck leaves.
A few hours, and several feet of water later, a motor boat approaches the man's house. The boats goes right to the edge of the house's second floor balcony and raps on the glass.
"Sir, we are evacuating the town, please get in the back of the boat so we can get you to safety." "I'm not leaving, God will protect me."
The boat leaves.
Several hours later the two floors of his house are covered in water and he is now on the roof. A helicopter flies overhead and lowers a man on a rope ladder.
"Sir, we are evacuating the town, please get in the chopper so we can get you to safety." "I'm not leaving, God will protect me."
The helicopter flies away.
That night the man drowns. After arriving in heaven he meets God.
"God, I had faith in you, why didn't you save me?" "I sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter. What more did you want me to do?"
Please tell me what your joke had in common with my post. How in the world could my post remind you of that old, old story?
What I am saying in the post is this: The "God wouldn't _______." argument is always invalid. When Limbaugh says "I refuse to believe that a loving God creates creatures able to do everything we can be able to do, to solve various problems, to cure diseases, that that is going to lead to an apocalypse.", he is shit-talking.
If you think I am dodging, then I'll admit it: The joke went over my head. It was too deep for me. I only have a B.S. in Physics, a B.S. in Mathematics, a B.S. in History, graduate credits in English Lit, about half of what I need for a B.S.E.E., and a J.D. Please explain it to me and please explain what it has to do with my earlier post.
If you think I am dodging, then I'll admit it: The joke went over my head. It was too deep for me. I only have a B.S. in Physics, a B.S. in Mathematics, a B.S. in History, graduate credits in English Lit, about half of what I need for a B.S.E.E., and a J.D. Please explain it to me and please explain what it has to do with my earlier post.
If you think I am dodging, then I'll admit it: The joke went over my head. It was too deep for me. I only have a B.S. in Physics, a B.S. in Mathematics, a B.S. in History, graduate credits in English Lit, about half of what I need for a B.S.E.E., and a J.D. Please explain it to me and please explain what it has to do with my earlier post.
Holy shit, really? Impressive, most impressive...
Not that impressive (if you spend most of your 20s going to school without a clear goal), but I think I have the wherewithal to understand a lame old joke that was dusty and dry before my great great grandfather fought in the civil war and why it has absolutely no relevance to the post that came before it.
I'm late getting in on this but here is my take on voting, along with Bush talking about the Republican philosophy in a C-Span interview:
I believe strongly in voting rights and am a polling inspector in California. I'm in charge of a staff of 6 and do my best to make sure that voting laws are followed and that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to do so.
It is disheartening though. Many people come up to me on election day and say things like, "Do you have anything that states what the candidates are for?" They also ask, "How does this person stand on...?" The answer I want to give is, "Don't you think you should have started doing your research BEFORE you showed up at the polls?," but I don't. I hand them a state prepared voter pamphlet and they sit down in a chair and look it over.
Some voters literally don't start trying to decide how to vote until they are in the voting booth. It takes them forever as they read every word of every ballot initiative. No pre-preparation whatsoever. When we are busy this presents a problem as they take a long time to vote.
I am most impressed with naturalized citizens, particularly if they come from a country where they did not have the right to vote. They often bring their children into the voting booth with them and explain the importance of voting. The other group of people I see who are the most appreciative are the WWII veterans.
Frankly, I would prefer a low voter turnout. Those voters tend to be the most engaged and study the issues. I will, however, ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote can do so, even the people who don't bother to study the issues or who disagree with me.
Finally, here is W. talking about the Republican philosophy in a recent C-Span interview. Jason should appreciate the first part:
Q Within the Republican Party, there is the Goldwater Republicans --
PRESIDENT BUSH: Still? (Chuckles.)
Q -- and there's the Rockefeller Republicans and Reagan Republicans.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm -- go ahead.
Q Oh, no, go ahead.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I'm just chuckling. I don't -- I -- I think the Goldwater Republicans and the Rockefeller Republicans are pretty far past.
Q But I'm talking about ideology. You have Reagan Republicans today. Are there -- will there be Bush Republicans? And can you define the ideology of a Bush Republican?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Compassionate conservatism, you know, the -- the use of government to help people in the private sector advance compassionate goals, like the faith-based initiative.
I -- you know, I -- I chuckled -- I didn't mean to -- I shouldn't have -- that's rude of me, to chuckle in the midst of your question. But I would be cautious about stereotyping mentalities in a constantly changing political dynamic.
And I think people like to label themselves certain things, but political parties grow, and they -- you know, immigration is a classic issue where, you know, I made a name for being compassionate and at the same time understanding the need to enforce our borders on immigration. And I don't think you can label that really any kind of political philosophy or any -- named after any former political candidate. It's just like dealing with a problem in the context of a -- what I call right-of-center or conservative philosophy.
If you think I am dodging, then I'll admit it: The joke went over my head. It was too deep for me. I only have a B.S. in Physics, a B.S. in Mathematics, a B.S. in History, graduate credits in English Lit, about half of what I need for a B.S.E.E., and a J.D. Please explain it to me and please explain what it has to do with my earlier post.
Comments
We already have tests to determine if someone can vote. Is denying a 17 year old better, the same, or worse than denying a 45 year old who can't read the ballot?
However, contrary to popular belief, voting is not a guaranteed right in the U.S. Currently, it is up to the states to decided who can vote. There are amendments which prevent the states from limiting the right to vote based on several issues, thus expanding it. A new bill being passed through Congress right now would make voting a fundamental right. HJR 28.
What happened to your avatar?
cue Sally Struthers...
Notice how many people on the left prefer "progressive" over "liberal"? I think the word progressive has been misused in the media to mean something that it should not. How is a "progressive" tax system progressive? Because you want to make some people pay an unequal share?
and I'm economically conservative -> "Get the government out of my wallet."
Why is it that both philosophies I take are opposites (adjective) yet the sentiment is the same? i.e. "get the govt out..."
In regards to high school on the other hand...I really can afford to always be throwing rocks. Most arguments fall on deaf ears, which isn't a big deal. The only bone I pick with people is for them to be critical thinkers, it doesn't matter if they don't have an opinion on DRM, evolution, education*, social things, whatever, just as long as they look at the world with active reasoning.
*Something hilarious happened Wednesday in my school system, which I think will best be addressed in the Secondary Education thread
If this is his argument, it shows that he's either desperate, stupid, or high (again). The line of reasoning has my vote for the worst logic ever. Using the same logic, we could say, "I don't believe in ________, because God wouldn't allow such a horrible thing to exist.", and fill in the blank with any horrible thing from breast cancer to sharks with laser beams on their heads.
A flood is coming but a very devout man decides to stay in his home. After several hours of torrential rain a large dump truck comes by his house. A man from the town gets out and knocks on the door.
"Sir, we are evacuating the town, please get in the back of the truck so we can get you to safety."
"I'm not leaving, God will protect me."
The truck leaves.
A few hours, and several feet of water later, a motor boat approaches the man's house. The boats goes right to the edge of the house's second floor balcony and raps on the glass.
"Sir, we are evacuating the town, please get in the back of the boat so we can get you to safety."
"I'm not leaving, God will protect me."
The boat leaves.
Several hours later the two floors of his house are covered in water and he is now on the roof. A helicopter flies overhead and lowers a man on a rope ladder.
"Sir, we are evacuating the town, please get in the chopper so we can get you to safety."
"I'm not leaving, God will protect me."
The helicopter flies away.
That night the man drowns. After arriving in heaven he meets God.
"God, I had faith in you, why didn't you save me?"
"I sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter. What more did you want me to do?"
What I am saying in the post is this: The "God wouldn't _______." argument is always invalid. When Limbaugh says "I refuse to believe that a loving God creates creatures able to do everything we can be able to do, to solve various problems, to cure diseases, that that is going to lead to an apocalypse.", he is shit-talking.
But, just for fun, why don't you explain it?
I'm very interested to see how Steve explains it.
I believe strongly in voting rights and am a polling inspector in California. I'm in charge of a staff of 6 and do my best to make sure that voting laws are followed and that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to do so.
It is disheartening though. Many people come up to me on election day and say things like, "Do you have anything that states what the candidates are for?" They also ask, "How does this person stand on...?" The answer I want to give is, "Don't you think you should have started doing your research BEFORE you showed up at the polls?," but I don't. I hand them a state prepared voter pamphlet and they sit down in a chair and look it over.
Some voters literally don't start trying to decide how to vote until they are in the voting booth. It takes them forever as they read every word of every ballot initiative. No pre-preparation whatsoever. When we are busy this presents a problem as they take a long time to vote.
I am most impressed with naturalized citizens, particularly if they come from a country where they did not have the right to vote. They often bring their children into the voting booth with them and explain the importance of voting. The other group of people I see who are the most appreciative are the WWII veterans.
Frankly, I would prefer a low voter turnout. Those voters tend to be the most engaged and study the issues. I will, however, ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote can do so, even the people who don't bother to study the issues or who disagree with me.
Finally, here is W. talking about the Republican philosophy in a recent C-Span interview. Jason should appreciate the first part:
Q Within the Republican Party, there is the Goldwater Republicans --
PRESIDENT BUSH: Still? (Chuckles.)
Q -- and there's the Rockefeller Republicans and Reagan Republicans.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm -- go ahead.
Q Oh, no, go ahead.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I'm just chuckling. I don't -- I -- I think the Goldwater Republicans and the Rockefeller Republicans are pretty far past.
Q But I'm talking about ideology. You have Reagan Republicans today. Are there -- will there be Bush Republicans? And can you define the ideology of a Bush Republican?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Compassionate conservatism, you know, the -- the use of government to help people in the private sector advance compassionate goals, like the faith-based initiative.
I -- you know, I -- I chuckled -- I didn't mean to -- I shouldn't have -- that's rude of me, to chuckle in the midst of your question. But I would be cautious about stereotyping mentalities in a constantly changing political dynamic.
And I think people like to label themselves certain things, but political parties grow, and they -- you know, immigration is a classic issue where, you know, I made a name for being compassionate and at the same time understanding the need to enforce our borders on immigration. And I don't think you can label that really any kind of political philosophy or any -- named after any former political candidate. It's just like dealing with a problem in the context of a -- what I call right-of-center or conservative philosophy.