Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said denying the right to vote to those who do not own property "makes a lot of sense" during a weekly radio program.
"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote," Phillips said. "It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote."
"Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today," he continued. "But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community."
"If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."
Approximately 33% of Americans are renters, according to the National Multi-Housing Council.
During the same radio program, Phillips discussed with David DeGerolamo, the founder of tea party group North Carolina Freedom, the repeal of various constitutional amendments.
"Of course, when people talk, three Amendments that really are the only ones that seriously get talked about getting repealed: the 16th Amendment, for the income tax, and we can only hope that happens; the 17th Amendment for having the appointment of Senators got back to state legislatures; and the 26th Amendment, I believe it is," Phillips said. "Do you know which one that is, David?"
"No, but I know which one I want repealed," responded DeGerolamo. "I want the 14th Amendment repealed."
The first clause of the 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of whether their parents are citizens. The second and third clause prohibits the government from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without due process and requires the government to provide equal protection under the law, respectively.
Ending citizenship rights granted to children of illegal immigrants born in the US will be one of the first objectives of the Republican-led House of Representatives, according to a published report.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who has represented Iowa's 5th congressional district since 2003, said he will push a bill to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.
"Because the 14th Amendment has been misconstrued, current law inappropriately gives American citizenship to the children of illegal aliens solely because their parents were able to cross our borders illegally and give birth here," King said in October.
"As a result of this perverse incentive, an entire 'anchor baby' industry has developed which exploits a legal loophole caused by a misinterpretation of the Constitution," he continued. "Many of these illegal aliens are giving birth to children in the United States so that they can have uninhibited access to taxpayer funded benefits and to citizenship for as many family members as possible."
In an open letter, DeeDee Blasé, the founder of Somos Republicans, criticized King for planning legislation "that would undermine the 14th amendment of the constitution" which he "swore an oath to uphold."
"We find both this rhetoric and this un-constitutional conduct reprehensible, insulting and a poor reflection upon Republicans because we don’t want our Party to be viewed as the Party of changing the United States Constitution," she added.
Wait, he wants to repeal the 26th amendment? Really? I've never even heard of that being discussed before. For everyone that doesn't know, that's the amendment that establishes the minimum voting age as no higher than 18.
I also find the decision to restrict federal voting to property owners a bit strange given that the extent to which someone invests in their own community has very little bearing on investment in the nation as a whole via taxation. Though I suppose since they want to repeal the 16th, that makes some sense. Not that repealing the 16ty amendment is likely, that would take a colossal feat of stupidity.
I wouldn't mind if the 17th amendment were repealed, as it would make the Senate a legitimate higher house. But I'm really surprised that any Tea Party leader would want it repealed, as it both diffuses the influence of popular politics on the Senate, and opens the door to list-based appointment restrictions like gender quotas.
Is it just me, or is the Tea Party core members (not the generic angry white folk) just those guys from college that ranted about libertarianism until they weren't allowed into bull sessions any more?
Also, while I get the idea of returning our nation to a more constitutionally based government (although I disagree with the idea that somehow we aren't one), amendments are by definition part of the constitution!
I mean, the damn document was written with the understanding that it would be changed.
I've been picking up copies of The Objective Standard lately, mostly to amuse myself regarding terrible political and social arguments, and there's always some reference to the Tea Party and an odd sort of Libertarianism that derives itself from Objectivism. Of course, what this really means is that its a form of Libertarianism that isn't predicted on Liberty at all, but on opposition to the state and an adherence to quasi-religious doctrine.
So yeah, those guys that ranted about Libertarianism in college.
I'm also curious as to how property ownership would be determined if the franchise were thus restricted. I don't own physical property, but I own a decent amount of stock, which isn't something that really existed outside the landed class when the franchise was restricted to property before, but seems to occur fairly often now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:I think they really just want to take the vote away from Dogma and Polo...err, a smaller group than it sounds like. I've already said to much.
Maybe it has something to do with the way I troll Illinois Tea Party protests by showing up in "Vote Quinn" shirts?
dogma wrote:I also find the decision to restrict federal voting to property owners a bit strange given that the extent to which someone invests in their own community has very little bearing on investment in the nation as a whole via taxation.
It's all part of the assumption that wealthy people know what's best for running the country. It's entirely coincidental that the wealthy think the best way to run the country is to do what benefits them the most.
I wouldn't mind if the 17th amendment were repealed, as it would make the Senate a legitimate higher house. But I'm really surprised that any Tea Party leader would want it repealed, as it both diffuses the influence of popular politics on the Senate, and opens the door to list-based appointment restrictions like gender quotas.
They believe that putting appointment into the hands of the state houses will make appointees loyal to the states. This is nonsense, of course, because the two parties that dominate Federal Government also dominate each individual state. What you'd see is a quite move to more closely align the state and federal arms of each party. What you'd lose is the freedom of senators to ignore party directives to represent the people of their electorates.
Which, given the low state of party discipline in the US system and it's likely effect on decent long term planning for the country, might be a good thing but the total opposite of what the Tea Party wants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Is it just me, or is the Tea Party core members (not the generic angry white folk) just those guys from college that ranted about libertarianism until they weren't allowed into bull sessions any more?
Plus the guys who ranted about stuff that was too crazy to really fit into any particular kind of -ism, plus a whole lot of people who are genuinely classical conservatives who just haven't quite figured out how crazy the rest of the party are.
Yeah, take away the vote of all the metro areas: aka the city folk who are so commonly known for their progressive liberal delusions, lack of education, and backwards social conventions. They can't mount gun racks on a bicicle, and they aren't allowed on public transportation either... SSoooooo...
While we're at it, why dont we just get even more to the point and make each mans vote equal to the ammount of ammo he has stashed in his shed? The more of your grandpappy's land you inherited and call your own, the more room to stockpile! They go hand in hand! Makes sense, since the right to have any say in anything really only comes down to how capable you are of exerting your will through force if necessary.
Land ownership is not an absolute, just a societal nicety and a stupidly respected tradition. Who was the first donkey-cave to say "This land is MINE" to start the ball rolling of ownership and class privellige? Probably the guy who could defend his right to be a greedy fuckstain the best.
GUNS!!!! (I'm shooting to get a Palin endorsement here)
The owning class of people in any feudal land based culture learned pretty hard that their right to ownership only went so far as to when the number of pissed off pissed ons just TOOK their land when they got fed up enough. But now we have more guns.
land = votes
but guns = land
so...
guns = votes! JOIN THE TEA PARTY AND YOU CAN VOTE BASED ON GUNS!
It's one thing to want some sort of enlightened oligarchy to make decisions for everyone, but this is just lazy. You should have to prove yourself by fighting space bugs, or jousting, or something along those lines.
Orkeosaurus wrote:It's one thing to want some sort of enlightened oligarchy to make decisions for everyone, but this is just lazy. You should have to prove yourself by fighting space bugs, or jousting, or something along those lines.
+1
Or maybe by bare knuckles boxing other world leaders? I think Putin might be dictator for life if we did it like that....................errrr wait a sec
I like some of the basic Tea Party platform....very similar to Libertarian stances. However the deep entrenchment of the religious right....WAY FAR CRAZY OMFG ARE YOU SERIOUS right gives the entire movement a really bad name. Plus having Sarah Palin as your most recognized political....interest? is a damn fine way to get laughed at.
sebster wrote:
Which, given the low state of party discipline in the US system and it's likely effect on decent long term planning for the country, might be a good thing but the total opposite of what the Tea Party wants.
Which, oddly enough, is why populism tends to fail. The mob is dumb. Well, at least ignorant.
Mr Mystery wrote:America, a country founded by illegal immigrants, wanting to stop...illegal immigrants.
They weren't illegal immigrants at the time, just immigrants. They weren't breaking any non-existent unified Native American law just by being there and they had the backing of their respective countries as well. It would be more honest and less loaded to say a country founded by immigrants wanting to stop immigrants, but even that isn't wholly accurate because we do take in immigrants. It is complicated and a pithy bumper slogan sticker doesn't really help deal with the situation.
agroszkiewicz wrote:I like some of the basic Tea Party platform....very similar to Libertarian stances. However the deep entrenchment of the religious right....WAY FAR CRAZY OMFG ARE YOU SERIOUS right gives the entire movement a really bad name.
I don't think the movement has much at all to do with the religious right. Seems like this is the result of the collapse of the religious right. I'd say that what you like about the Tea Party is probably what draws most people to it.
America is scary... i think we should start granting asylum to people from NY and CA.
Palin making those ridiculous wikileaks comments was awesome as well.
I always argued my missus should leave California and come here on the grounds that it might one day end up in the ocean after a big earthquake, but i think i can just say "50% of the country are lunatics" these days.
I hope Palin becomes president and then bans everything thats not sanctioned by her interpretation of the bible!
For something to be illegal there actually has to be a law that is broken. There was no law stating that people couldn't visit the western hemisphere. People didn't initially 'invade' North America or were as unfriendly or as unwelcome by the native population as they would be later on.
As for the 'destitute' I believe he is referring to one of the inscriptions on the Statue of Liberty. If you read my posts nowhere do I say anything about immigration, but not that it is disingenuous and showing a gross misunderstanding of both the law and history to call the early colonists 'illegal immigrants'.
mattyrm wrote:America is scary... i think we should start granting asylum to people from NY and CA.
Palin making those ridiculous wikileaks comments was awesome as well.
I always argued my missus should leave California and come here on the grounds that it might one day end up in the ocean after a big earthquake, but i think i can just say "50% of the country are lunatics" these days.
I hope Palin becomes president and then bans everything thats not sanctioned by her interpretation of the bible!
Matt, do you do your own research into someone's stance before you just condemn them to the trash heap of history or do you believe what the news tells you?
The American media has no interest in seeing Americans think independently, neither does our government. The minute our Government detects that a vast majority of it's "subjects" becomes skeptical they will lose the game they've been playing for the last 110+ years.
mattyrm wrote:America is scary... i think we should start granting asylum to people from NY and CA.
Palin making those ridiculous wikileaks comments was awesome as well.
I always argued my missus should leave California and come here on the grounds that it might one day end up in the ocean after a big earthquake, but i think i can just say "50% of the country are lunatics" these days.
I hope Palin becomes president and then bans everything thats not sanctioned by her interpretation of the bible!
Matt, do you do your own research into someone's stance before you just condemn them to the trash heap of history or do you believe what the news tells you?
The American media has no interest in seeing Americans think independently, neither does our government. The minute our Government detects that a vast majority of it's "subjects" becomes skeptical they will lose the game they've been playing for the last 110+ years.
As for repealing the 16th Amendment, didn't the 18th Amendment get repealed? Wasn't it bad policy? The 16th Amendment is worse. It's Marxsist. The 18th Amendment was a result of Progressive politicians and the Turbo-Christians (i.e. Pat Buchanan Christian, or a fascist) in the Temperance Movement.
I wouldn't go as far as to say Property Owners are the only people that can vote, Federal Income tax payers should be the only people that can vote. There's too large of a parasite class in this nation that pays no federal income tax, and thusly votes for more largess.
The 17th Amendment has turned our Senate into a smaller version of the House. It was supposed to be a forum for representatives from the States to be able to interact with the Federal Government, and apporpriate logical things for their states when the need arised, not some amalgam of what they were never supposed to be.
The 26th is fine, don't know why this guy doesn't like it. The 27th is one worth removing completely.
The 1st clause of the 14th Amendment needs to be re-written (or interpereted better) it goes as follows:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What's in bold is always ignored in a debate about illegal immigrants, in order for someone to be subject to the juridiction of the United States, they will have needed to apply for a Visa, gotten a green card or have become a naturized citizen. This also applies to their children. If they sneak in and make no effort to become a citizen, they need to be deported, that's one of the few things the Federal Government is responsible for (but alas, they drop the ball there too).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Mystery wrote:
reds8n wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:I think invaders can be classed as illegal immigrants.
That pretty much means that 99% of the countries in the world are founded by illegal immigrants then no ?
Yup, so everyone might as well chill the feth out about where everyone else comes from.
That is pretty easy to say when the UK isn't being overrun with Illegals that have no inncoulations, can barely read Spanish, use our public services without paying any federal taxes and are completely unaccounted for as to who they are.
This doesn't even take into account the serious problem on the Border with all of the drug cartels, which are waging an open war with anyone who is in the way.
Stormrider wrote:
The American media has no interest in seeing Americans think independently, neither does our government.
Wait, people think independently now?
So, should I assume that you, the inventor of the contemporary English language, have traveled forward through time in order to save us all?
Stormrider wrote:
The American media has no interest in seeing Americans think independently, neither does our government. The minute our Government detects that a vast majority of it's "subjects" becomes skeptical they will lose the game they've been playing for the last 110+ years.
I have no intereste in seeing you think "independently", just as you appear to lack the same interest by posting here. So, why would you expect any body composed of suitably random people to lack such an interest, let alone a body composed of people selected by their desire for a certain sort of power?
Also, as alluded to above, what in God's name is "independent thought"?
So, should I assume that you, the inventor of the contemporary English language, have traveled forward through time in order to save us all?
I'd watch that movie.
Phillips is going about this land owner = voter thing ass backwards. If the minimum requirement to vote is property any schmuck with a buck could buy a plot via micro real estate. It's too easy to game the system. What we should do is abolish the electoral system and institute what I like to call the Land Lord system™. If property is tied to a vested stake in the community then the more property you have the more vested in the community you are, see? So in my Land Lord system™ the more land you own the more votes you get, something along the lines of owning any property guarantees you 1 vote but each acre you own past the first affords you an additional vote. So if you 5 acres of land you get 5 votes. The Land Lord system™ will ensure that states with vast tracks of cheap land have a disproportionate amount of votes. Finally giving real Americans (ie Texans, Alaskans and South-westerners) a commanding voice in government.
dogma wrote:Also, as alluded to above, what in God's name is "independent thought"?
I think he may have meant "critical thought".
I agree with the Tea Party Leader in part; the idea that those who contribute and stand to lose something should have more of a say than the "uneducated rabble". As someone who owns a few things, it can be frustrating to be taxed far out the ass and working two jobs and having to watch your money be taken and given to an able-bodied person who lives off of town assistance. I'm not saying we should change the laws or anything, but I understand the sentiment.
Also, it's interesting how many of the same people will condemn "the masses" and then zealously defend the right of those people that they look down upon to be able to make decisions concerning the governance of the Nation.
Stormrider wrote:As for repealing the 16th Amendment, didn't the 18th Amendment get repealed? Wasn't it bad policy? The 16th Amendment is worse. It's Marxsist.
Taxation is Marxist? What?
Stormrider wrote:
I wouldn't go as far as to say Property Owners are the only people that can vote, Federal Income tax payers should be the only people that can vote. There's too large of a parasite class in this nation that pays no federal income tax, and thusly votes for more largess.
Yeah, because income tax payers never vote according to their own desires for largess.
Stormrider wrote:
The 26th is fine, don't know why this guy doesn't like it. The 27th is one worth removing completely.
Wait, you want Congressional salaries to be permitted to take effect during the current term of Congressional members?
I mean, that seems really insignificant, and also not in accordance with the views that you generally spouse.
Stormrider wrote:
What's in bold is always ignored in a debate about illegal immigrants, in order for someone to be subject to the juridiction of the United States, they will have needed to apply for a Visa, gotten a green card or have become a naturized citizen.
No, that's absolutely false. Everyone in the United States is subject to its jurisdiction in the absence of any exemption.
dogma wrote:Also, as alluded to above, what in God's name is "independent thought"?
I think he may have meant "critical thought".
I agree with the Tea Party Leader in part; the idea that those who contribute and stand to lose something should have more of a say than the "uneducated rabble". As someone who owns a few things, it can be frustrating to be taxed far out the ass and working two jobs and having to watch your money be taken and given to an able-bodied person who lives off of town assistance. I'm not saying we should change the laws or anything, but I understand the sentiment.
Also, it's interesting how many of the same people will condemn "the masses" and then zealously defend the right of those people that they look down upon to be able to make decisions concerning the governance of the Nation.
The concept of democracy is arbitrary- Power of the people can be included to have everyone, or some. As it is, we do not let children vote in our society along with noncitizens and those who lose their ability to vote (convicts).
Monster Rain wrote:
I agree with the Tea Party Leader in part; the idea that those who contribute and stand to lose something should have more of a say than the uneducated rabble. As someone who owns a few things, it can be frustrating to be taxed far out the ass and working two jobs and having to watch your money be taken and given to an able-bodied person who lives off of town assistance. I'm not saying we should change the laws or anything, but I understand the sentiment.
See, that's where my disconnect is. I don't understand why people are frustrated by that, because I really don't care. I have previously made enough money, in the 'right' ways, to be taxed in the upper brackets, and while I would have made more with lower taxes I wasn't made uncomfortable by higher taxes. It was a very "meh" sort of thing.
If you live a comfortable life, or any sort of life that you want to live, then it seems odd to take umbrage with regard to the conditions of that life.
Monster Rain wrote:
Also, it's interesting how many of the same people will condemn "the masses" and then zealously defend the right of those people that they look down upon to be able to make decisions concerning the governance of the Nation.
You assume that the franchise has anything to do with making practical choices. It doesn't; voting is placation.
dogma wrote:If you live a comfortable life, or any sort of life that you want to live, then it seems odd to take umbrage with regard to the conditions of that life.
My life at the time that I was describing wasn't comfortable. I was working two jobs and was broke (Kids and the like are expensive ). I even applied for assistance for heating fuel and was told that I make too much money, I could have been taking a free ride if I had just quit my jobs and been a dirtbag. I'm not saying this to garner sympathy or anything, but just to give a little perspective into why people might think this way.
dogma wrote:You assume that the franchise has anything to do with making practical choices. It doesn't; voting is placation.
I think voting might mean more if there were prerequisites. Do you think that the attitude you have toward voting might be because they let anyone with an ID(optional in some places) walk in and do it?
Monster Rain wrote:
My life at the time that I was describing wasn't comfortable. I was working two jobs and was broke (Kids and the like are expensive ). I even applied for assistance for heating fuel and was told that I make too much money, I could have been taking a free ride if I had just quit my jobs and been a dirtbag.
I imagine that your life would have been much less comfortable at that point. I know that I wouldn't want to live on a welfare income; especially if I had, or planned to have, children.
Monster Rain wrote:
I think voting might mean more if there were prerequisites. Do you think that the attitude you have toward voting might be because they let anyone with an ID(optional in some places) walk in and do it?
Given that I study voting habits throughout the world, its most likely because I've observed the extent to which voting is used to control a given group of people; without regard to the size of that group.
For example, voting in early American history had very little to do with the interests of the landed so much as the rhetoric that got the landed to vote. The mob is always dumb, regardless of how large it is. After all, if the procedure is set, then there isn't much recourse for those involved outside listening to those given power, or changing the procedure. And one of those is much harder than the other.
dogma wrote:If you live a comfortable life, or any sort of life that you want to live, then it seems odd to take umbrage with regard to the conditions of that life.
My life at the time that I was describing wasn't comfortable. I was working two jobs and was broke (Kids and the like are expensive ). I even applied for assistance for heating fuel and was told that I make too much money, I could have been taking a free ride if I had just quit my jobs and been a dirtbag. I'm not saying this to garner sympathy or anything, but just to give a little perspective into why people might think this way.
You could of traded the kids for some Warhammer products.
But I think the condition of living does invest people with a level of concern as to who votes- rich/hard working people may feel that free-looting bums shouldn't get to vote. Those who feel deprived of material goods (poor) may feel they earn a greater right to vote.
Interesting to see some of the reactions here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Given that I study voting habits throughout the world, its most likely because I've observed the extent to which voting is used to control a given group of people; without regard to the size of that group.
I am appalled that you insinuate that the American voting system is rigged to exclude minorities, redrawing districts to keep the part(ies) in power that ability to keep said power and disenfranchise some segment of the populace.
Yeah Stormrider, I worked/lived in the States and i spent a great amount of time in Washington, Virginia, California and NY.
Politically i tend to agree with republicans more than democrats, and im not an Obama fanboy by any stretch of the imagination. Im very very centralised with regards to US politics, and im pretty conservative but seriously... The GOP appears to have been hijacked by religious zealots and even though i agree with republicans on many stances (aggressive foreign policy for example) the glaringly obvious fact to me is that the tea party movement are attempting to allow their Religious beliefs to interfere with politics, and this annoys most normal rational people.
Im not "listening to the media" I am making my own mind up, and my own mind says "Stop crowing on about Jesus If you want normal people to vote for you"
mattyrm wrote:The GOP appears to have been hijacked by religious zealots and even though i agree with republicans on many stances (aggressive foreign policy for example) the glaringly obvious fact to me is that the tea party movement are attempting to allow their Religious beliefs to interfere with politics, and this annoys most normal rational people.
mattyrm wrote:
Im not "listening to the media" I am making my own mind up, and my own mind says "Stop crowing on about Jesus If you want normal people to vote for you"
Well, even if you are, so is everyone else. Once you start down the deprivation of agency road, there aren't too many places to get off for delicious Egg McMuffins.
mattyrm wrote:
Im not "listening to the media" I am making my own mind up, and my own mind says "Stop crowing on about Jesus If you want normal people to vote for you"
Well, even if you are, so is everyone else. Once you start down the deprivation of agency road, there aren't too many places to get off for delicious Egg McMuffins.
Hell, we should just communize...then everyone would get an Egg McMuffin (or everyone would "own" an Egg McMuffin, which as cynical realists we know it is the Democratic Communist Party of America that really runs the Egg McMuffin)!
I love the teaparty because it exposes the republican party for what it is. I also like how the landowner clause significantly reduces the voting power of elitest city dwellers while giving disproportionate voting power to farmers and backwoods isolationists.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I am British and WHAT IS THIS
Shouldn't you be rioting?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:
mattyrm wrote:America is scary... i think we should start granting asylum to people from NY and CA.
Palin making those ridiculous wikileaks comments was awesome as well.
I always argued my missus should leave California and come here on the grounds that it might one day end up in the ocean after a big earthquake, but i think i can just say "50% of the country are lunatics" these days.
I hope Palin becomes president and then bans everything thats not sanctioned by her interpretation of the bible!
Matt, do you do your own research into someone's stance before you just condemn them to the trash heap of history or do you believe what the news tells you?
The American media has no interest in seeing Americans think independently, neither does our government. The minute our Government detects that a vast majority of it's "subjects" becomes skeptical they will lose the game they've been playing for the last 110+ years.
Thats because as a democratic government it's supposed to represent the majorities interests, and the majority of it's subjects have been skeptical for 200 years.
"Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today," he continued. "But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community."
Even Jesus would call his guy a dill weed.
It's like they intentionally say the most inflamatory comments that they can to get their party's name in the paper. "Any publicity is good publicity" is only true for porn stars and serial killers.
They should make it so that only those who serve in the U.S. military and veterans who have done so should be able to vote.
Serve your country on the front lines or feth off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:That is pretty easy to say when the UK isn't being overrun with Illegals that have no inncoulations, can barely read Spanish, use our public services without paying any federal taxes and are completely unaccounted for as to who they are.
What, are you an Arizonan? That kind of talk is considered extreme even here in Texas.
Melissia wrote:They should make it so that only those who serve in the U.S. military and veterans who have done so should be able to vote.
Yes, vets only, none of the other civil servants or college educated. Just the dudes that failed the entrance tests then went to the fallback of military service. As a disclaimer I know that there are plenty of smart people in the military, but having lived next to the largest NAS in the northeast for 23 years (it just closed down) I can tell you there are a lot of really fething stupid people in there too. A disproportionate number of them. As if going straight from highschool to a job where you do nothing but physically train and perform mundane repetitive tasks for several years doesn't build a high level of civic or cultural knowledge.
Melissia wrote:They should make it so that only those who serve in the U.S. military and veterans who have done so should be able to vote.
Yes, vets only, none of the other civil servants or college educated. Just the dudes that failed the entrance tests then went to the fallback of military service. As a disclaimer I know that there are plenty of smart people in the military, but having lived next to the largest NAS in the northeast for 23 years (it just closed down) I can tell you there are a lot of really fething stupid people in there too. A disproportionate number of them. As if going straight from highschool to a job where you do nothing but physically train and perform mundane repetitive tasks for several years doesn't build a high level of civic or cultural knowledge.
Melissia wrote:They should make it so that only those who serve in the U.S. military and veterans who have done so should be able to vote.
Yes, vets only, none of the other civil servants or college educated. Just the dudes that failed the entrance tests then went to the fallback of military service. As a disclaimer I know that there are plenty of smart people in the military, but having lived next to the largest NAS in the northeast for 23 years (it just closed down) I can tell you there are a lot of really fething stupid people in there too. A disproportionate number of them. As if going straight from highschool to a job where you do nothing but physically train and perform mundane repetitive tasks for several years doesn't build a high level of civic or cultural knowledge.
You're ruining the joke.
Your post history made me think it wasn't a joke. I apologize. Also I love that movie.
Melissia wrote:Right, nobody should vote on an empty stomach and goddamn those husbands need to get off their asses and actually do something for once.
And the men shouldn't vote unless they have a receipt that shows that they, indeed, purchased said sandwich.
ShumaGorath wrote:I love the teaparty because it exposes the republican party for what it is. I also like how the landowner clause significantly reduces the voting power of elitest city dwellers while giving disproportionate voting power to farmers and backwoods isolationists.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I am British and WHAT IS THIS
Shouldn't you be rioting?
I think you yanks probably would laugh heartily at what the British class as a "riot," just as you chuckle when we claim to be suffering from "snowstorms."
ShumaGorath wrote:I love the teaparty because it exposes the republican party for what it is. I also like how the landowner clause significantly reduces the voting power of elitest city dwellers while giving disproportionate voting power to farmers and backwoods isolationists.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I am British and WHAT IS THIS
Shouldn't you be rioting?
I think you yanks probably would laugh heartily at what the British class as a "riot," just as you chuckle when we claim to be suffering from "snowstorms."
What you calla riot, we'd probably call a peaceful demonstration
ShumaGorath wrote:I love the teaparty because it exposes the republican party for what it is. I also like how the landowner clause significantly reduces the voting power of elitest city dwellers while giving disproportionate voting power to farmers and backwoods isolationists.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I am British and WHAT IS THIS
Shouldn't you be rioting?
I think you yanks probably would laugh heartily at what the British class as a "riot," just as you chuckle when we claim to be suffering from "snowstorms."
What you calla riot, we'd probably call a peaceful demonstration
Unless, of course, there's miners involved. Then things go nuts. I'm talking actual battles here.
Melissia wrote:They should make it so that only those who serve in the U.S. military and veterans who have done so should be able to vote.
Yes, vets only, none of the other civil servants or college educated. Just the dudes that failed the entrance tests then went to the fallback of military service. As a disclaimer I know that there are plenty of smart people in the military, but having lived next to the largest NAS in the northeast for 23 years (it just closed down) I can tell you there are a lot of really fething stupid people in there too. A disproportionate number of them. As if going straight from highschool to a job where you do nothing but physically train and perform mundane repetitive tasks for several years doesn't build a high level of civic or cultural knowledge.
You're ruining the joke.
Your post history made me think it wasn't a joke. I apologize. Also I love that movie.
Meh. The book was better. It had nukes as a infantry-men's primary weapon
Stormrider wrote:As for repealing the 16th Amendment, didn't the 18th Amendment get repealed? Wasn't it bad policy? The 16th Amendment is worse. It's Marxsist.
Hahahahahaha!
That's just a great internet moment right there.
dogma wrote:Taxation is Marxist? What?
Actually, Stormrider said it was Marxsist. Which is probably what tipped it from being just another moment of internet craziness, and into great comedy.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, vets only, none of the other civil servants or college educated. Just the dudes that failed the entrance tests then went to the fallback of military service. As a disclaimer I know that there are plenty of smart people in the military, but having lived next to the largest NAS in the northeast for 23 years (it just closed down) I can tell you there are a lot of really fething stupid people in there too. A disproportionate number of them. As if going straight from highschool to a job where you do nothing but physically train and perform mundane repetitive tasks for several years doesn't build a high level of civic or cultural knowledge.
As a veteran I really can't help but agree with the man.
Not that it applies to me though. I'm awesome.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:I think everything would be better if the only people allowed to vote were female FPS gamers.
yeenoghu wrote:land = votes
but guns = land
so...
guns = votes! JOIN THE TEA PARTY AND YOU CAN VOTE BASED ON GUNS!
Now thats quality thinking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:They should make it so only people who can eat three shredded wheat for breakfast can vote.
Incorrect. Only people who have eaten chicken fried steak, barbeque, or queso within 10 days of the election should be able to vote. Its for the good of the nation.
Kilkrazy wrote:They should make it so only people who can eat three shredded wheat for breakfast can vote.
Incorrect. Only people who have eaten chicken fried steak, barbeque, or queso within 10 days of the election should be able to vote. Its for the good of the nation.
Hmmm scratch the chicken fried steak and barbeque from that list and your good. Depends on the queso however.
The Dreadnote wrote:Sharing weapons? That's communism!
It sounds a lot like capitalism: "Hey buy these weapons and in 10-15 years we promise not to invade you because your now deemed a threat to democracy..."
Kilkrazy wrote:They should make it so only people who can eat three shredded wheat for breakfast can vote.
Incorrect. Only people who have eaten chicken fried steak, barbeque, or queso within 10 days of the election should be able to vote. Its for the good of the nation.
Hmmm scratch the chicken fried steak and barbeque from that list and your good. Depends on the queso however.
Wait, you don't like chicken fried steak and barbeque? WHAT ARE YOU SOME SORT OF FREAAAAKKKK???
rubiksnoob wrote:Hmmm scratch the chicken fried steak and barbeque from that list and your good. Depends on the queso however.
Why on earth would you scratch those?
I straight up hate fried chicken, with the sole exception being chickfila chicken nuggets. And not a big steak guy, be it grilled, fried, what have you.
Maybe it could be restricted to the amount of airtime you have access to. In order for your opinion to count, you have to have a certain amount of airtime. The more airtime you have, the more your opinion counts for. Oh wait wait... never mind.
What's in bold is always ignored in a debate about illegal immigrants
It's actually not ignored, and is precisely why it would work to run over the border, have a baby, and then say it's an American citizen.
If you're in the US, you're subject to the jurisdiction thereof. For example, if you commit a crime, you're subject to American law. There are a few exceptions, one of which is an invading army, but being an illegal immigrant is not one.
After all, how are you "illegal" if you're not subject to jurisdiction? It's the jurisdiction that makes you illegal.
I actually listened to part of an NPR show on this, before I got bored and made my friend paraphrase it to me. And, actually, I'm not sure it was NPR, but I figured dogma's ears would perk up if I said "NPR."
I am appalled that you insinuate that the American voting system is rigged to exclude minorities
Well, I actually am appalled by that insinuation. Minorities are not excluded. They're ignored or double counted to whatever extent the scumbags running things have polling implying they'll vote for them.
This is America, dude. Politicians could give a crap less about race, they want to win elections. They'd try to keep their OWN race away from the polls if that's what their tracking data suggested would work.
They'd hang a black guy from a tree to win. They'd pump him full of PCP and send him after their daughter then kiss the baby to win.
Race is nothing more than a section of a polling pie chart anymore.
The GOP appears to have been hijacked by religious zealots
Nah, that phase is passing. It's more about libertarian zealots now. There are some religious types in the Tea Party movement, but they're not really the dominant mentality. At its core it's a libertarian movement.
I love the teaparty because it exposes the republican party for what it is.
Except it doesn't... Well, I dunno, it does, but I'm pretty sure it's not in the way you think.
The Republican party is basically the Democratic party, but with a different color/logo. They both SUPER LOVE large corporations, they both SUPER LOVE being in DC, and chatting with lobbyists, and feeling glad on themselves, and being status quo douchebags.
The Tea Party is exposing them as being that.
They expose them as being that because the Tea Party is totally NOT that, and the Republicans get all panicky when it sounds like somebody wants to ACTUALLY reduce the size of government, as opposed to just talking about it to get votes. The Republicans want to have plenty of money to use to bribe their way through each election cycle, just like the Democrats do.
In that way, the Tea Party is a very logical reaction to Obama. Obama and his crew are way left of the Democrats, and want to do things that upset the status quo. The Tea Party is way right of the Republicans, and they want something similar. Basically we had decades of pro-corporate middle of the roaders, and then Obama came along and started rocking the boat around, and everyone on the other side noticed splashing and started yelling.
So, in conclusion I think we should literally just have people pay for votes. However much money you want to kick in, wonderful, that dollar amount is multiplied by your vote. Maybe we could do a little progressive scale, just for fun. Honestly, why not? Why not be literal about how your system works?
I wouldn't know, I'm adopted and love my REAL parents
Left in a bascinet in front of a Sororitas chapel...
Phryxis wrote:And, actually, I'm not sure it was NPR, but I figured dogma's ears would perk up if I said "NPR."
I've never actually listened to NPR.
Phryxis wrote:
Well, I actually am appalled by that insinuation. Minorities are not excluded. They're ignored or double counted to whatever extent the scumbags running things have polling implying they'll vote for them.
This is actually what I was implying. Well, that, and that the franchise is ultimately about getting people to consent to being governed, not about producing an effective government.
Phryxis wrote:
They expose them as being that because the Tea Party is totally NOT that and the Republicans get all panicky when it sounds like somebody wants to ACTUALLY reduce the size of government, as opposed to just talking about it to get votes.
I think that the Tea Party, as made manifest within the electorate actually want to reduce the size of the government, but whether or not the actual elected officials affiliated with the Tea Party are the same way is yet to be seen.
Phryxis wrote:Well, I actually am appalled by that insinuation. Minorities are not excluded. They're ignored or double counted to whatever extent the scumbags running things have polling implying they'll vote for them.
This is America, dude. Politicians could give a crap less about race, they want to win elections. They'd try to keep their OWN race away from the polls if that's what their tracking data suggested would work.
They'd hang a black guy from a tree to win. They'd pump him full of PCP and send him after their daughter then kiss the baby to win.
Race is nothing more than a section of a polling pie chart anymore.
You assume there has to be some kind of racist intent in order for there to be a problem, when there doesn't. Voter suppression isn't done out of racism, but out of a knowledge that black voters are more likely to vote Democrat. The effect is the same though.
And that isn't to imply the Republicans are somehow the only ones engaging in poor electoral behaviour. It's just that on the issue of minorities, the Democrats are encouraged to run get out the vote campaigns because they typically vote Democrat, while the Republicans are encouraged to run voter suppression for the very same reason.
The important thing is to think long and hard about the amount of influence the parties have in writing the rules of the game, and how this might be a problem in protecting people's democratic rights.
Phryxis wrote:Except it doesn't... Well, I dunno, it does, but I'm pretty sure it's not in the way you think.
The Republican party is basically the Democratic party, but with a different color/logo. They both SUPER LOVE large corporations, they both SUPER LOVE being in DC, and chatting with lobbyists, and feeling glad on themselves, and being status quo douchebags.
The Tea Party is exposing them as being that.
They expose them as being that because the Tea Party is totally NOT that, and the Republicans get all panicky when it sounds like somebody wants to ACTUALLY reduce the size of government, as opposed to just talking about it to get votes. The Republicans want to have plenty of money to use to bribe their way through each election cycle, just like the Democrats do.
Dude, that gets exposed every time the Republicans win office. People then proceed to not care, or stop voting only to forget when the Republicans lose office and go straight back to voting for them again. A handful of reactionaries isn't going to change any of that.
In that way, the Tea Party is a very logical reaction to Obama. Obama and his crew are way left of the Democrats, and want to do things that upset the status quo. The Tea Party is way right of the Republicans, and they want something similar. Basically we had decades of pro-corporate middle of the roaders, and then Obama came along and started rocking the boat around, and everyone on the other side noticed splashing and started yelling.
Obama is simply not as leftwing as you claim. He's on the leftwing of the Democrats, but nowhere near the fringe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I've never actually listened to NPR.
You should, it's pretty good. The political stuff is alright, but despite their best intentions it is limited by the format - you can't really do in-depth reporting on the radio. The slice of life stuff and the range of interviews they do are really good though.
If you think spending time in the military makes a person more politically savvy and prepared to evaluate political issues you haven't spent much time in or around service members. Their level of political effeciacy is about the same as the average persons.
Yeah, I've never understood the idea that military service produces superior political actors. It isn't like the average serviceman is given an in depth education in politics, economics, and culture.
Well, I guess from a conservative perspective "better" could simply means "votes conservative" and since veterans tend to vote conservative one might conclude that the military produces "better" voters.
In fact, that makes a lot of sense, I've know many people who determine their opinion of others on the basis of their voting habits.
dogma wrote:In fact, that makes a lot of sense, I've know many people who determine their opinion of others on the basis of their voting habits.
That is correct you filthy, unwashed, thinks-he-better-than-thou hippy tree-hugging pinko commie liberal.
It is not just military service that makes a politician. Americans love the larger than life person- that includes war heroes (even if a military man does jack, there is a level of credibility that goes with "I carried a gun in defense of your right to suck air freely and watch American Idol"), celebrities, famous people, ect..
dogma wrote:Yeah, I've never understood the idea that military service produces superior political actors. It isn't like the average serviceman is given an in depth education in politics, economics, and culture.
Well, I guess from a conservative perspective "better" could simply means "votes conservative" and since veterans tend to vote conservative one might conclude that the military produces "better" voters.
In fact, that makes a lot of sense, I've know many people who determine their opinion of others on the basis of their voting habits.
That's a bit part of it, a whole lot of people confuse "intelligent thinking" with "thinking that's the same as mine". But there's also an idea that some people are more deserving of a say in politics than others, because they're more responsible and have given more, which is a reasonable sounding idea, albeit one that'd be near impossible to administer fairly. What's interesting, though, is that for a certain proportion of the population they tend to assume military service is the form of possible service to society (and will only grudgingly accept that other professions also contribute, and may not even do that). Which is an interesting reflection on the way some people look at the world, if nothing else.
Ahtman wrote:If you think spending time in the military makes a person more politically savvy and prepared to evaluate political issues you haven't spent much time in or around service members. Their level of political effeciacy is about the same as the average persons.
The idea behind pushing for service votes is that one will have a greater sense of what it means to sacrifice your own comfort for the greater good. At least in the classic Assimov take on things. Political savvy =/= sense of civic duty.
But military service doesn't lead to a greater appreciation, awareness of, or respect for the greater civic good.
Christ, I sound like a ******** Tau. [Please don't use speling to avade the swear filter.]
I think it's worth noting that even in Starship Troopers, the reason the vote was restricted to veterans had more to do with status quo than any actual justification. There was a mealy mouthed "if you make somebody work towards something they'll appreciate it more" type justification, but IIRC even in the book there were tangible benefits for military service such as training, the GI bill, etc.
There's a quote from an ancient greek, and it might even be from the book, which basically says that there is no way to filter people to find those best able to vote. Just let 'em all vote, because it's the most fair (and as Dogma says, it gives the most legitimacy to the government).
Polonius wrote:I think it's worth noting that even in Starship Troopers, the reason the vote was restricted to veterans had more to do with status quo than any actual justification. There was a mealy mouthed "if you make somebody work towards something they'll appreciate it more" type justification, but IIRC even in the book there were tangible benefits for military service such as training, the GI bill, etc.
dogma wrote:Yeah, I've never understood the idea that military service produces superior political actors. It isn't like the average serviceman is given an in depth education in politics, economics, and culture.
Well, I guess from a conservative perspective "better" could simply means "votes conservative" and since veterans tend to vote conservative one might conclude that the military produces "better" voters.
In fact, that makes a lot of sense, I've know many people who determine their opinion of others on the basis of their voting habits.
All very true. The majority of US servicement must surely vote Republican? I spendt 6 months with the Oaklahoma national guard and i was suffocated by the testosterone, the chewing tobacco and the Republican love.
And i vote conservative in the UK and i think they are slightly more right wing than the hand wringing nancy boys that make up the opposition, so i guess thats just the way of it eh?
I was in the military for ten years, but i dont like soldiers.
The higher up the tree you go, the better the blokes are. SF guys are alright, but everybody else just likes to talk big and make things up. Most soldiers sailors and airmen (and especially the last two) are so far in the rear they have to send their laundry forwards, but they still talk like they had brass knuckle boxing bouts with Taliban fighters.
And i really hate macho guys as well, plenty of them in the armed services.
A large amount of service personel are poorly educated as well right? Barring officers, and this is one of the reason many people join. Considering i dislike overtly macho, stupid people. I think its fair to say that i dislike about 75% of the armed forces.
Although, ive now got a civvie job, and i dislike 95% of them. So are they good guys after all?
). I even applied for assistance for heating fuel and was told that I make too much money, I could have been taking a free ride if I had just quit my jobs and been a dirtbag. I'm not saying this to garner sympathy or anything, but just to give a little perspective into why people might think this way.
