Once again our focus is on fluff instead of things that matter.

 

I'm not so sure that we shouldn't have a nationally standardized proficiency exam for voting eligibility wherein prospective voters must demonstrate at least a minimal grasp of history and current affairs before being entrusted with something as important as selecting our nation's leaders. The fact that George Will's vote counts no more than a Jay-Walk All-Star recruited to Rock-the-Vote is absurd.

 

I also believe that there is great inequity in allowing individuals who have never paid one dollar in federal income tax to vote on an equal footing with those who invest majorly in the financing of this nation. I genuinely do think that voting rights should be limited to actual "shareholders" who pay even one dollar annually in Federal Income Taxes.

 

But before you throw me under the bus for being extreme... I do agree that policing tee-shirts is a silly, misplaced waste of time and energy. :lol:

Or only White Male property owners .

Well you could avoid what you consider the Hoi Polloi and cast an absentee ballot . " Human Parasites " sounds like a phrase straight out of " Mein Kampf "

Human parasites is a perfect description of people who refuse to work and board a bus and then ride to one or more locations to cast a vote to help themselves to more of my tax dollars. If Hitler used the term, then it just illustrates that a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

If you want to see Nazi imagery at work, just watch the children being exploited in the Dear Leader video thread and the video of the Obama Youth in the same thread. Hitler was a community organizer.

Or only White Male property owners .

I made no association to race, gender or religion in my post. Distilling it to the level of "White Male property owners" is no only offensive to me, but is a direct insult to anyone that is not "white" "male" or a "property owner"... Essentially suggesting that they are somehow incapable of gaining an education, earning a living and and contributing even one dollar annually to the massive Federal Government they are voting to sustain.

 

Call me Pollyanna, but I see no reason that an ethnic minority female non-property owner should be unable to do those things in America. I personally know far more who do than those who do not, and I have no problem at all with their vote counting as much as mine does. This is not "elitism" it is merely providing some degree of equity for those "investors" footing the bill. There is no "sustainable" corporation in the world that would grant votes on company matters to "non-stock holders."

 

There is no church I know of that permits non-members or those with openly divergent beliefs the opportunity to vote on policy matters. This is no different.

 

If you're not going to pay tax dollars, you shouldn't expect to have an equal say in how the tax dollars others pay are spent.

Edited October 5, 200818 yr by Fastbreak

Personal freedom? Should you and I be allowed to wear shirts with photos of guns on it to the polls? What about those that want to wear shirts with profanity on them? I hate those (the profanity ones) and don't think they have a place anywhere...but I believe in the freedom of choice for people that choose to wear them.

 

Where so we stop on prohibiting this freedom of choice?

Like smoking in a restaurant? Like owning specific guns?

 

As to your example of shirts with profanity on them, any business owner can tell them to leave if they so desire.

I'm a poll worker in Campbell Co . This question came up a few elections ago and this is what we were told by the County clerks office . In Kentucky electioneering in illegal within I believe 500 feet of polling places . The wearing of campaign shirts or buttons is not prohibited while you are waiting in line to vote as long as all you are doing is standing in line waiting to vote , but don't try to pass out any campaign literature or persuade other voters about your candidate while waiting or afterwards . You vote Then leave .

 

If you are simply just wearing the shirt there is no problem at all with it.

My wife wore here Obama shirt to the polls during the primary. She didn't have any problems because she didn't do any campaigning.

Once again our focus is on fluff instead of things that matter.

 

I'm not so sure that we shouldn't have a nationally standardized proficiency exam for voting eligibility wherein prospective voters must demonstrate at least a minimal grasp of history and current affairs before being entrusted with something as important as selecting our nation's leaders. The fact that George Will's vote counts no more than a Jay-Walk All-Star recruited to Rock-the-Vote is absurd.

 

I also believe that there is great inequity in allowing individuals who have never paid one dollar in federal income tax to vote on an equal footing with those who invest majorly in the financing of this nation. I genuinely do think that voting rights should be limited to actual "shareholders" who pay even one dollar annually in Federal Income Taxes.

 

But before you throw me under the bus for being extreme... I do agree that policing tee-shirts is a silly, misplaced waste of time and energy. :lol:

 

I'm not so sure Palin would get to vote under these requirements.

I'm not so sure Palin would get to vote under these requirements.

They said similar things about G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and they both earned two terms each... heck, for that matter, they said similar things about Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.

 

I won't argue that she's anywhere near as polished as Obama or Biden... but you make a big mistake to assume she's a moron. The fact that she's unvarnished and grounded in more common sense than Ivy League elitism is what makes her appealing to those who support her. :lol:

Once again our focus is on fluff instead of things that matter.

 

I'm not so sure that we shouldn't have a nationally standardized proficiency exam for voting eligibility wherein prospective voters must demonstrate at least a minimal grasp of history and current affairs before being entrusted with something as important as selecting our nation's leaders. The fact that George Will's vote counts no more than a Jay-Walk All-Star recruited to Rock-the-Vote is absurd.

 

I also believe that there is great inequity in allowing individuals who have never paid one dollar in federal income tax to vote on an equal footing with those who invest majorly in the financing of this nation. I genuinely do think that voting rights should be limited to actual "shareholders" who pay even one dollar annually in Federal Income Taxes.

 

I hesitate to respond to this as it so absurd at face value that I can do little else to undermine it. But, I have to take the bait.

 

What you have proposed is not only undemocratic, but anti-democratic. If your idea of a better America is a shameless oligarchy then I do not believe we are even on the same plane when discussing the matter. Perhaps this is better discussed in the “elitism” thread.

 

And yes, it is embarrassing and regrettable that many Americans can’t discuss politics and economics above an elementary level, but to require them to make a knowledgeable distinction between the works of John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx is simply tyrannical. This is not including the obvious, self-affirmative rigging of the “test” questions that would undoubtedly take place by the oligarchs as this new government progressed. To each his own, I guess.

I hesitate to respond to this as it so absurd at face value that I can do little else to undermine it. But, I have to take the bait.

 

What you have proposed is not only undemocratic, but anti-democratic. If your idea of a better America is a shameless oligarchy then I do not believe we are even on the same plane when discussing the matter. Perhaps this is better discussed in the “elitism” thread.

 

And yes, it is embarrassing and regrettable that many Americans can’t discuss politics and economics above an elementary level, but to require them to make a knowledgeable distinction between the works of John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx is simply tyrannical. This is not including the obvious, self-affirmative rigging of the “test” questions that would undoubtedly take place by the oligarchs as this new government progressed. To each his own, I guess.

I suppose that the $700 Billion bail-out of Wall Street and Universal Health Care are democratic?

 

The forefathers understood that taxation without representation was a raw deal. I am convinced that the brand of taxation we now experience with representation was never a serious concern. Thomas Jefferson spoke very stridently against the levels of punitive taxation we now experience.

 

What is undemocratic about offering every able bodied American the opportunity to help build the country that provides them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? (Happiness isn't guaranteed, but everyone has the opportunity to pursue it.)

 

As far as the test, I'd settle for the simple ability to name the current president and vice president, the most recent past president and vice president, the first and 16th presidents, the city where our nation's capitol may be found, and the city of the state capitol in the state they reside. That and perhaps enough rudimentary math skill to be able to balance a check book provided they were so inclined. There is nothing racist, bigoted or elitist about any of these questions.

 

As far as requiring potential voters to be tax payers... even if they only pay one dollar a year... I like that idea the more I think about it. You tell me one corporation, church, or better yet, one stable family in which the children (dependents) have an equal vote with the parents (providers) in determining family financial matters and I may concede your point. A voice yes, and caring parents absolutely consider their children’s best interests, but no way no how do decent parents allow their children to call the shots that will affect the welfare of the entire family. ( At one time, my home would have had a thousand pairs of Air Jordans and no money for car payments, utilities or mortgage… :lol: )

 

I know many families where one or both parents attempt to buy their children’s affection (votes.) This is no different than the whimpering, panderers we have in Washington when every dependent has a vote, regardless of their ability or willingness to contribute in any way whatsoever. I’m not speaking here of the elderly who labored for decades, or the handicapped or infirm. I am speaking only of those unwilling to do their part to help shoulder the load. Families such as those described most often result in divorced parents and messed up kids... kinda like what we're going through now as a nation with two bitterly divided political parties, millions needlessly on welfare, and our financial house in a shambles.

 

Yeah, I guess I am really absurd to consider such ideas. :thumb:

I suppose that the $700 Billion bail-out of Wall Street and Universal Health Care are democratic?

 

The forefathers understood that taxation without representation was a raw deal. I am convinced that the brand of taxation we now experience with representation was never a serious concern. Thomas Jefferson spoke very stridently against the levels of punitive taxation we now experience.

 

What is undemocratic about offering every able bodied American the opportunity to help build the country that provides them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? (Happiness isn't guaranteed, but everyone has the opportunity to pursue it.)

 

As far as the test, I'd settle for the simple ability to name the current president and vice president, the most recent past president and vice president, the first and 16th presidents, the city where our nation's capitol may be found, and the city of the state capitol in the state they reside. That and perhaps enough rudimentary math skill to be able to balance a check book provided they were so inclined. There is nothing racist, bigoted or elitist about any of these questions.

 

As far as requiring potential voters to be tax payers... even if they only pay one dollar a year... I like that idea the more I think about it. You tell me one corporation, church, or better yet, one stable family in which the children (dependents) have an equal vote with the parents (providers) in determining family financial matters and I may concede your point. A voice yes, and caring parents absolutely consider their children’s best interests, but no way no how do decent parents allow their children to call the shots that will affect the welfare of the entire family. ( At one time, my home would have had a thousand pairs of Air Jordans and no money for car payments, utilities or mortgage… :lol: )

 

I know many families where one or both parents attempt to buy their children’s affection (votes.) This is no different than the whimpering, panderers we have in Washington when every dependent has a vote, regardless of their ability or willingness to contribute in any way whatsoever. I’m not speaking here of the elderly who labored for decades, or the handicapped or infirm. I am speaking only of those unwilling to do their part to help shoulder the load. Families such as those described most often result in divorced parents and messed up kids... kinda like what we're going through now as a nation with two bitterly divided political parties, millions needlessly on welfare, and our financial house in a shambles.

 

Yeah, I guess I am really absurd to consider such ideas. :thumb:

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:That is a great post.

 

Back on the thread subject. Wearing a political statement (button, shirt, hat, whatever) to the polls could become a distraction. You may not mean for it to be, but less reasonable people could be inclined to comment or just make stupid remarks in an effort to draw you in to an argument. I currently have a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on my truck. Since putting it on, I have been flipped off 3-4 times a day while being passed by someone with an Obama sticker in their back window. While I don't do this when I see the opposite view being displayed, I'm sure some McCain supporters do. With emotions riding so high on the outcome of the election, common sense says to ban all political propaganda from the polling places. If this keeps one assault or fight from happening, it is worth it.

What about shirts in Obama blue with an O on it? Or McCain blue with a McC on it? Where do we stop? Seriously, what about our freedoms? I would think that the small government people would be all over this.

The forefathers understood that taxation without representation was a raw deal. I am convinced that the brand of taxation we now experience with representation was never a serious concern. Thomas Jefferson spoke very stridently against the levels of punitive taxation we now experience.

 

I fail to see what this has to do with voting rights, unless you’re attempting to imply that “no taxation without representation” can be logically inversed to “no representation without taxation.” It can’t.

 

What is undemocratic about offering every able bodied American the opportunity to help build the country that provides them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? (Happiness isn't guaranteed, but everyone has the opportunity to pursue it.)

 

The principles of democracy are freedom and equality under law. Limited suffrage is very much undemocratic. It is laughable that you would associate democracy with that.

 

As far as the test, I'd settle for the simple ability to name the current president and vice president, the most recent past president and vice president, the first and 16th presidents, the city where our nation's capitol may be found, and the city of the state capitol in the state they reside. That and perhaps enough rudimentary math skill to be able to balance a check book provided they were so inclined. There is nothing racist, bigoted or elitist about any of these questions.

 

I don’t care what your test is. The test makers will be those with control of the government and can use the test to further restrict voting. Requiring a test to vote is nothing more than limiting the electorate to favor those in power. It’s tyranny.

 

As far as requiring potential voters to be tax payers... even if they only pay one dollar a year... I like that idea the more I think about it. You tell me one corporation, church, or better yet, one stable family in which the children (dependents) have an equal vote with the parents (providers) in determining family financial matters and I may concede your point. A voice yes, and caring parents absolutely consider their children’s best interests, but no way no how do decent parents allow their children to call the shots that will affect the welfare of the entire family. ( At one time, my home would have had a thousand pairs of Air Jordans and no money for car payments, utilities or mortgage…)

 

Great. Let’s examine the corporate model of voting. Perhaps we should allow the wealthiest and the highest earners to completely dominate elections. It is frightening that someone would advocate that my vote should be worth only fractions of another’s because they earn more money. How many Americans would it take to outvote just one CEO?

 

This paternal analogy is equally ridiculous. We are all dependents, even if we are providers. We are dependents of the system and rely on its inherent fairness; as such we are guaranteed equality in this government, unlike a paternal structure. Furthermore, parents provide quite a bit more than simply a pair of Jordans. Parents and children are unequal for a host of reasons, yet I am to exclude an entire group of equal rights because some parents spoil their children? The paternal structure is entirely totalitarian.

 

I know many families where one or both parents attempt to buy their children’s affection (votes.) This is no different than the whimpering, panderers we have in Washington when every dependent has a vote, regardless of their ability or willingness to contribute in any way whatsoever. I’m not speaking here of the elderly who labored for decades, or the handicapped or infirm. I am speaking only of those unwilling to do their part to help shoulder the load. Families such as those described most often result in divorced parents and messed up kids... kinda like what we're going through now as a nation with two bitterly divided political parties, millions needlessly on welfare, and our financial house in a shambles.

 

The people you describe make up nowhere near the majority of Americans. Frivolous spending and poor decisions are laid at the feet of every member of the electorate, including the wealthy. You are attempting to lay that burden on only those you look upon with disdain. I disdain many members of the electorate, but to limit their voices only means a consolidation of power to what I believe or how I think. It’s tyranny.

 

And you’ve entirely ignored governmental actions or policies that affect every American, no matter the tax burden or spending level of the government. Laws restricting a person’s rights certainly affect someone who doesn’t make enough to pay taxes, but they are excluded under this form of government. Decisions to go to war certainly affect every American, but under this form of government only those who make enough to pay taxes get a say. I could go on.

 

Yeah, I guess I am really absurd to consider such ideas. :thumb:

 

In the context of democracy, absolutely.

I fail to see what this has to do with voting rights, unless you’re attempting to imply that “no taxation without representation” can be logically inversed to “no representation without taxation.” It can’t.

 

 

 

The principles of democracy are freedom and equality under law. Limited suffrage is very much undemocratic. It is laughable that you would associate democracy with that.

 

 

 

I don’t care what your test is. The test makers will be those with control of the government and can use the test to further restrict voting. Requiring a test to vote is nothing more than limiting the electorate to favor those in power. It’s tyranny.

 

 

 

Great. Let’s examine the corporate model of voting. Perhaps we should allow the wealthiest and the highest earners to completely dominate elections. It is frightening that someone would advocate that my vote should be worth only fractions of another’s because they earn more money. How many Americans would it take to outvote just one CEO?

 

This paternal analogy is equally ridiculous. We are all dependents, even if we are providers. We are dependents of the system and rely on its inherent fairness; as such we are guaranteed equality in this government, unlike a paternal structure. Furthermore, parents provide quite a bit more than simply a pair of Jordans. Parents and children are unequal for a host of reasons, yet I am to exclude an entire group of equal rights because some parents spoil their children? The paternal structure is entirely totalitarian.

 

 

 

The people you describe make up nowhere near the majority of Americans. Frivolous spending and poor decisions are laid at the feet of every member of the electorate, including the wealthy. You are attempting to lay that burden on only those you look upon with disdain. I disdain many members of the electorate, but to limit their voices only means a consolidation of power to what I believe or how I think. It’s tyranny.

 

And you’ve entirely ignored governmental actions or policies that affect every American, no matter the tax burden or spending level of the government. Laws restricting a person’s rights certainly affect someone who doesn’t make enough to pay taxes, but they are excluded under this form of government. Decisions to go to war certainly affect every American, but under this form of government only those who make enough to pay taxes get a say. I could go on.

 

 

 

In the context of democracy, absolutely.

 

:thumb:

 

What about this, also?

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

I guess in some people's eyes, those that don't pay taxes are less than equal.

I suppose that the $700 Billion bail-out of Wall Street and Universal Health Care are democratic?

 

The forefathers understood that taxation without representation was a raw deal. I am convinced that the brand of taxation we now experience with representation was never a serious concern. Thomas Jefferson spoke very stridently against the levels of punitive taxation we now experience.

 

What is undemocratic about offering every able bodied American the opportunity to help build the country that provides them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? (Happiness isn't guaranteed, but everyone has the opportunity to pursue it.)

 

As far as the test, I'd settle for the simple ability to name the current president and vice president, the most recent past president and vice president, the first and 16th presidents, the city where our nation's capitol may be found, and the city of the state capitol in the state they reside. That and perhaps enough rudimentary math skill to be able to balance a check book provided they were so inclined. There is nothing racist, bigoted or elitist about any of these questions.

 

As far as requiring potential voters to be tax payers... even if they only pay one dollar a year... I like that idea the more I think about it. You tell me one corporation, church, or better yet, one stable family in which the children (dependents) have an equal vote with the parents (providers) in determining family financial matters and I may concede your point. A voice yes, and caring parents absolutely consider their children’s best interests, but no way no how do decent parents allow their children to call the shots that will affect the welfare of the entire family. ( At one time, my home would have had a thousand pairs of Air Jordans and no money for car payments, utilities or mortgage… :lol: )

 

I know many families where one or both parents attempt to buy their children’s affection (votes.) This is no different than the whimpering, panderers we have in Washington when every dependent has a vote, regardless of their ability or willingness to contribute in any way whatsoever. I’m not speaking here of the elderly who labored for decades, or the handicapped or infirm. I am speaking only of those unwilling to do their part to help shoulder the load. Families such as those described most often result in divorced parents and messed up kids... kinda like what we're going through now as a nation with two bitterly divided political parties, millions needlessly on welfare, and our financial house in a shambles.

 

Yeah, I guess I am really absurd to consider such ideas. :thumb:

:thumb: Maintaining a free society should require a country's citizens to accept some responsibilities and accountability. Requiring them to acquire and demonstrate a basic understanding of the democratic process would be a common sense reform. Liberals seem to believe that freedom is something magic that can be maintained without sacrifices and independent from responsibility. History has proven time and again that such is not the case.

:thumb:

 

What about this, also?

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

I guess in some people's eyes, those that don't pay taxes are less than equal.

 

Or some animals are more equal than others.