The Glade 4.0

I know the story of one guy, long ago, who won a big victory by dying.

Story goes, a lot of folks won from that.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Special circumstance, but that's right.

I'm only presenting a hypothetical, anyway, since I already qualify to vote under the presented criteria. Even so, I disagree with Khross; I do not want to play the role of oppressor, in spite of the opinions some here have formed of me.

That particular guy had advantages though, that it would be the height of arrogance for anyone else to claim.

In any case, slinging around the term "opressor" at "anyone making a decision I don't like" is getting almost as bad as "racism". You don't like it and want to fight back? Go for it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, history isn't exactly full of people fighting back against the oppression of the franchised. I find it amusing, however, that you think you should be allowed the privilege of voting without earning it. I also find it amusing that you think you should be exempt from laws passed by legislators you couldn't elect in the first place.

_________________

Makes a great rebuttal though, doesn't it?

All you gotta do is put one TEENY little hole in a balloon and *pop* she goes!

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I have made the argument numerous times that people should be able to decide what laws they will live under. Your system only allows people a say if they meet your criteria, otherwise, you'll tell them what laws they will live under. That is tyranny, and I don't care what name you try to disguise it with. So I think my attitude lines up pretty well with the Founders, who wanted a say in the laws they would live under, rather than have the laws dictated to them by the king of England.

Has not the SCOTUS ruled on such criteria? Were not poll taxes used by the franchised to prevent blacks from voting in the South? That's the side of history you want to line yourself up with?

Military service is not a "universal option." They don't take just anyone, especially if you're female.

It is no more tyranny than the current system you're attempting to appropriate. The Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendments collectively remove your ability to impact the direction or choices of the government. Indeed, they nullified the Tenth Amendment and limited your ability to directly affect policy in any meaningful. So, I fail to see how your position lines up with the Founders.

You will also note, incidentally, that all Thirteen States present at the signing of the Constitution had vastly more restrictive franchise and citizenship policies than are present today. They enacted limitations and encapsulated certain positions from the general population. But, let's ignore that fact, right? We can also ignore all off the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that challenged universal suffrage and the ability of the masses to make judicious and informed political decisions; hence, there was a near unanimous opposition to true democracy (not to mention the logistical nightmare). And, perhaps we should also ignore the fact that individual citizens were functionally prohibited from directly influencing the election of the highest elected office.Yes, actually, it has. And prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the SCOTUS indicated numerous times that the States were free to set their own standards for citizenship and the final arbiters of who could and could not vote in the elections held in their state. Your confusion is the assumption that being a citizen of the United States trumps being a citizen of Virginia, when very few of the Founders actually held that position.

_________________

I seem to recall a few instances of people fighting back against the oppression of the franchised






It didn't work out well. Everyone likes to think that you can rebel and there will be some golden age where people realize how right their personal way of looking at the world is. Unfortunately, they all tend to think the same thing, and it's really the clever talker, not you, that will be calling the shots.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Right, because we assume sweeping changes will leave in tact the military monstrosity that's currently weighted down with bureaucrats and technocrats that have no business making policy. Seriously, that's the best you've got?

_________________

Thanks for the clarification... I didn't want to think you'd support such monstrosities as poll taxes, sorry to say I was wrong about that. Thank God the SCOTUS saw the injustice, even if you cannot.

Beryllin:

It would behoove you to not intentionally misrepresent the statements of other or baldly lie about what others have posted. I realize it has been your MO in the past, when confronted with positions you do not like, but it will not tolerated in this sub-forum. If you wish to overtly lie about what I have stated, please do so in Hellfire!. That way, I can tell you what I really think about your gross and intentional mischaracterizations of other statements.

_________________

*shrug* I don't care what you really think. Post anything in Hellfire you'd like.

*edit* It was really a mistake posting here again. Mookhow, perma-ban this account, please.

*edit 2* Reporting this post to be sure the mods see it.

I know you don't; hence, you are blatantly lying about what I posted. There's a commandment about that somewhere.

_________________

11th Commandment ...

"And you don't mess around with Slim"

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Except that I've not violated that commandment. I have expressed an opinion about your position that I believe to be true.

No, you've lied. It's really that simple. Show me where I stated any support for poll taxes based on race or any other protected qualifier? Show me where I have denied individuals otherwise unfit to vote the right to gain that privilege? If you cannot find a deliberate or explicit statement to that fact, then you are simply trying to rationalize your appeal to emotion. And, since I already know you cannot do so, I will accept an apology.

_________________

Poll taxes were used by racists to prevent blacks from voting, and just like you, they said blacks could vote if they "gained that privilege" by paying the poll tax. In my view, your position is morally no different; it's identical, morally. And that's my opinion.

So, you think Khross is racist? That's quite a charge.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Why is Michael Ironside's picture included with those other 3 guys?

Beryllin:

Except, there's a vast moral difference in my position than theirs: I make no qualifiers based on race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Rather, I simply lay out the requirements for voting, of which, incidentally, you only have to meet two. So, I'll explain this again:

1. Own Land
2. Own Tangible Property (Condo)
3. Own a Business
4. Serve a standard enlistment (6 years) in the Military

Any of those 4 and actually pay taxes.

You don't have to do all 4. You just have to do 1 of the 4. I suspect, however, it's the paying taxes part that gets to you. But, since pretty much everyone would pay taxes in my system, life would be good. Those incapable of paying taxes would be so by choice or some ailment that would currently prevent them from voting in the first place.

So, keep on lying and making your appeal to emotion: it won't work. And, at absolutely best, it's an intentional false equivalence.

_________________

No, I'm not saying that Khross is a racist. I'm saying his criteria for voting privilege is just as reprehensible as the poll tax was, because morally they are no different. Different motivations, perhaps, but morally equivalent. (sp)

That's Lieutenant General Jack Granger.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

So you feel that foreign nationals should be allowed to vote in US elections?

Then your view of what is moral is vastly different than my view. I don't equate financial ability with the simple fact that people are alive, and should determine for themselves what law they will live under. 3 of your 4 choices requires financial resources and the 4th requires 6 years service, give up 6 years of liberty (assuming you are able to, since not all people are physically able to join the military).

And if you think that's reasonable to have the privilege to vote, fine. Just exclude those who cannot vote from the law the upper tier passes and be done with it. Make your law for your life, and leave those who are excluded alone, to choose for themselves.