The Glade 4.0

Dedolito:

The Senate didn't amend the House bill. They passed their own bill, which the House hasn't voted on, and wants to amend because they don't like the Senate bill. But to amend it, they have to pass it, first. There is no Senate amendment to approve via reconciliation.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Since I'm the first mod to respond:

Bery,
You are an adult. Ban yourself. We aren't going to ban you just because you can't stop yourself from posting.

It's actually quite a simple request.....

I agree with Lenas. Better to take a self imposed break Ber, then come back. No fun banning people if they WANT you to. Geez.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

I don't understand why all of these conversations about God and Jesus and Faith are always intertwined on this board within some sort of heated political debate.
I love talking about God, and I love hearing people talk about their faith, whether Christian, Buddhist, Catholic, Morman, Pagan...whatever.
I don't like reading about someone's faith in God being used as a tool or an instrument to try and make a political statement or God used as a weapon in any of these types of political conversations.
As a Christian, I think there are much better ways to reach people. I can't remember an instance where someone was brought over to Christ by being badgered in by being berated in a debate.
I like you Bery, and I love that you talk so openly about your love for Christ. However, you and I both know that these types of conversation in heckfire and hellfire are not going anywhere but down, and I don't see any seeds being planted either. There is a time and place for a man to stand up for God and a time and a place for a man to know when to draw that line.
Please don't go, but please don't waste your time with these debates in heck/hellfire.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

I found a useful site:

http://keithhennessey.com/2010/03/01/tw ... hallenges/

This was written before the talk of using self-executing rules, which I presume apply to Bill#2 to get it through the House.

In fairness to Bery, it should be noted that he didn't bring religion into the discussion. He was arguing about voting rights from a secular moral perspective. Other people brought up the religious angle, and even then, Bery's responses indicated that he considers Divine authority and secular voting rights to be separate issues. Frankly, I was happy to see Bery arguing in favor of a "separation of Church and State" perspective!

This.

I pointed out that in my opinion, what Khross proposes has many similarities to poll tax laws, and we can all see what a crap-storm this thread turned into. Maybe that's my fault for not nodding at Khross's wisdom and smiling as the emperor wore no clothes, but it's the only real temptation I've felt to post back here in weeks, because, in my view, any attempt to disenfranchise people should be opposed vigorously: Don't tell me on one hand I have to meet criteria you set up in order to have a say on the laws I will live under, while on the other hand you tell me you're going to impose your laws on me anyway, even though you took away my say in passing those laws.

Why not? You're going to rebel? 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."

So, do you agree with the position Khross has laid out?

Ah. Well carry on then. I'm not much into the politics side of things, I just don't want you to go away, Bery.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Many argue that the devolution to a two party system and/or the rise of a non-invested voting block living off the government's teat has done the same to us, and that dissatisfaction yields views and suggestions such as Khross's. Khross is vigorously opposing our state which has handed the family budget to the shopping addict stay-at-home wife.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Let me lay out a scenario for you, LK and believe me I am not trying to browbeat you or any such thing. I just want your opinion:

38 yr old woman gets up and leaves her apt to go to the clerk job she's held for 20 years, paying her taxes and supporting the local economy with her purchases. She doesn't own property, no condo, didn't serve in the military, works for her employer who considers her a model employee. She's obeyed the law her whole life except a minor traffic infraction here and there.

According to Khross, this woman should not be allowed to vote. What do you think? Do you think it is in any way moral that she be denied the vote?

*edit* Anyone at all want to take a stab at answering that? It's a simple yes or no question.

But lets take it a step further: Is it moral that a Legislature whom she has no say in electing can pass a law increasing her income tax burden by x%? She has no voice in choosing someone to represent her in D.C. Is that moral in anyone's view? Anyone who agrees with Khross wanna try to justify that?

Beryllin:

Yup. She chose not to meet the requirements to exercise a privilege. Voting isn't a right.

_________________

Just like blacks could gain the ability to vote by paying the poll tax. Furthermore, you sure don't mind taking her tax dollars without giving her any representation in the government unless she buys it, do you.

Maybe you'd like the title of King George?

Same could be said of foreign nationals... they live here, pay taxes, etc, but cannot vote and subject the mandates passed by those that can... if you are going to make arguments that something is absolutely morally reprehensible, at least apply it consistently.

That could be said, but then they are actually citizens of a different country, with the option of packing up and leaving at any time they choose to do so. Were I in Germany I would have no expectation of being allowed to vote in German elections, unless I became a citizen of Germany.

Actually, they have two choices, continue to live and work towards the requirements that would allow them to vote, or leave.... the exact same options possible under what Khross suggested.

There is no fundamental difference, except that you have already accepted a set of qualifications for the "right" to vote, without realizing those qualifications are just as arbitrary as any other, while arguing that arbitrary qualifications are morally wrong..

Or, as you said:



and

I see nothing immoral about German citizens voting in German elections and American citizens voting in American elections. I don't deny German citizens the ability to vote in their own elections, and foreign nationals who come to America have chosen to live under American law; they have made that choice.

What I do find immoral is people denied the ability to vote because certain people don't like the way they vote. People say lots of things I don't like, but I would not argue they should not be allowed to speak. In the same way I do not like the way some people vote, but I will not tell them they cannot vote just because they aren't likely to vote the way I want them to. And I will vigorously oppose anyone who does try to.

I don't agree with all the exact particulars, but I agree with the general proposition.

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

What is worse, Bery? Taking away the say of those who pay the tax burden by overwhelming the ballot box with those who pay no taxes, and have no stake in low taxes or small government; or restricting the franchise in a manner that is more apt to constrain the growth and power of government, while at the same time holding it at a level of attainability to all?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Bare assertion fallacy, Beryllin. Where did I ever say she'd have to pay taxes? It's a curious thing that you keep ascribing positions to me not stated because you can't win this argument.

_________________

No one wins these arguments, but in the scenario I presented I specifically mentioned that she pays taxes and asked if it was moral to deny her the vote, and you said "Yup", did you not?

*sigh* Dammit, people. Stop making me agree with Beryllin.

*grumblegrumble*

I wouldn't be so quick to agree with Beryllin, FarSky. He's intentionally strawmanning my position and misrepresenting it without abandon. Everyone has access to the privilege of voting in my system; everyone has the choice to vote or not vote. The question is whether or not they choose to vote and earn that privilege by investing themselves in their own livelihood, their own community, and their own country. Currently, 52% of the population has a net 0 (including payroll taxes) or negative tax burden. Yet, Beryllin thinks it moral for them to dictate to the people who actually pay taxes what the government should do with our money. It would seem to me, quite honestly, that if you cannot and do not contribute to the funding of the government, you don't vote.

_________________