• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paratrooper's Mom Begs Obama: 'End It'

Dictatorships don't have such a hot track record either.

I think I will stick with the Constitution.

Wasn't suggesting a Dictatorship, we're suggesting that people EARN, or at least prove that they are deserving of, some of their rights: The rights that affect others. You have to take a test to drive, to get a hunting license, to carry a concealed firearm, to get certain jobs, operate large vehicles, etc. So why shouldn't something that stands to effect yourself, those around you, and those who aren't even remotely connected to you be regulated?
 
Wasn't suggesting a Dictatorship, we're suggesting that people EARN, or at least prove that they are deserving of, some of their rights: The rights that affect others. You have to take a test to drive, to get a hunting license, to carry a concealed firearm, to get certain jobs, operate large vehicles, etc. So why shouldn't something that stands to effect yourself, those around you, and those who aren't even remotely connected to you be regulated?

How is having a ruling class different than a dictatorship? Who would administer the "tests" and decide who get to be part of the ruling class?

So our constitution would be amended to read "for some of the people, by some of the people?"
 
Last edited:
How is having a ruling class different than a dictatorship? Who would administer the "tests" and decide who get to be part of the ruling class?

So our constitution would be amended to read "for some of the people, by some of the people?"

Referee tosses flag on the play. Factual error. Fifteen yard penalty. US Constitution doesn't mention "for the people, by the people...." That's out of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Public schools these days. Shakes head.
 
How is having a ruling class different than a dictatorship? Who would administer the "tests" and decide who get to be part of the ruling class?

So our constitution would be amended to read "for some of the people, by some of the people?"

You're thinking of this whole subject in the means of "some people" - a small number of people.

We're not talking of a *small* part of the populus - but a majority of voters.
So far we have that they need to be registered and present theirselves with proof of their identity - which is good.

I would prefer that before they register they have to answer a few basic questions to prove that they have a brain in their head and are sort of aware of the things that they're voting on.

"Who is the vice president?"

"What was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence"

"What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue"


A lot of people know those things - yeah. And some don't - boo. And those who don't should know those things.

Heck - my idea of "testing for the right" isn't even as stingent as "testing to become a citizen." And becoming a citizen isn't listed out in the Constitution, they made up the guidelines eventhough there is no basis for them.
 
I'm bringing this from another thread to prove my point:

YouTube- SARAH PALIN BOOK SIGNING - Interviews with Supporters

This is about Palin - but a classic example of what happens when people support a candidate (possible candidate, in this case) and yet no nothing - absolutely nothing - about who that person is, what they stand for, what their values are, etc.

There are just as many people in the Obama camp and everywhere else who are just as clueless on policies and values and other things that *do* matter in politics (btw).
 
So our constitution would be amended to read "for some of the people, by some of the people?"

Looked at Obamacare lately?
 
How is having a ruling class different than a dictatorship? Who would administer the "tests" and decide who get to be part of the ruling class?

So our constitution would be amended to read "for some of the people, by some of the people?"

Well, to put it simply...the first one's an oligarchy, the second one's a dictatorship.

:D


It'd be Oligarchy or Elitism if we picked a stupid reason to remove people from the voting process. What I seek to do is instead remove stupid people from the voting process, leaving the quasi-educated and on up to vote. We take voting rights away from felons, and yet we let complete morons vote.

Makes very little sense to me.
 
Well, to put it simply...the first one's an oligarchy, the second one's a dictatorship.

:D


It'd be Oligarchy or Elitism if we picked a stupid reason to remove people from the voting process. What I seek to do is instead remove stupid people from the voting process, leaving the quasi-educated and on up to vote. We take voting rights away from felons, and yet we let complete morons vote.

Makes very little sense to me.


Some Felons are entirely capable of voting but can't.
 
Personally I am sick to death of people clamoring that we have some obligation to get behind this war and "support our troops" by not politicizing the issue or using the deaths of our sons and daughters as material for the anti-war cause.

This is bull****. The entire Vietnam War was an example of unnecessary, needless U.S. casualties and billions of wasted tax dollars. Back then hawks were arguing "Domino Effect" and non-interventionists were arguing "leave it alone, there will be no Domino Effect in SE Asia due to the situation in Vietnam." If you spoke out against the war you were a communist loving hippy ***** who hated the troops...whether you did or not. If you were in support of the war or you fought in it you were a baby killing war monger. Anyone ever heard of the Goldwater-Nichols Reforms? The Powell Doctrine? Anyone know why those came about? Anyone have any idea why those lessons were tossed completely out the window in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan?

So many people who use the "you can't use dead soldiers as protest material it undermines the war effort" are full of ****. Our dead and wounded are the first tragic result of this worthless and completely unnecessary campaign. They are one of the main reason we should be protesting. There was no legitimacy behind the war in Iraq because there was no necessity for it. So each and every kid that dies over there is one more reason to protest what's going on. And the absolutely botched up strategy in Afghanistan by both administrations is all the more reason to spotlight our dead troops...to say "this blood is the price of your ineptitude...fix the situation or bring our troops home so they don't have to die needlessly."

The baseless, completely stupid argument that somehow the protests by parents of dead troops negatively impacts or undermines the rest of the troops is beyond ludicrous. It's complete and utter horse**** logic with no basis in reality. It's an attempt by ignorant people to shout down others who don't agree with their myopic worldview. And usually those making those ignorant comments have no idea what is actually impacting troop morale the most.

This is so much "you're with us or your with the terrorists" nonsense.

I think there are a lot of good points raised here. The problem we have is we live in a society of 'risk' and 'fear' and very two different thought processes. Here in the U.K. we know every soldier who has died; his family; who he left behind etc There are genuine emotions attached to these guys; and I dare say it is the same in the U.S. As a western nation we have evolved into a society who believe in preserving life; in a number of ways. This leads us to the problem of Afganistan/terrorist scenario: there is much more value attached to death here: being honourable etc. Our western soldiers would risk their own life trying to get to a wounded colleague: that is how much life is is valued.

I just don't see how we can win and to all intense purposes we are being held to ransom; it seems that everyone is allowed a platform to express opinion except the average white male (of which I am not).

What I will say is that here in this country our average forces personnel are considerably lower paid than, say, our bin collectors (refuse collectors) who tend to work to rule i.e. the bin or trash can has to be closed properly; any sacks or bags of rubbish will not be uplifted etc. That is unacceptable to me....when you are in the forces you can't just put the rifle down and say 'I'm not doing this'; 'Give me this before I do that' etc

...........and as for grown adult men joining the forces and making their own choice despite parents wishes. In the U.K. for a lot of our young lads here, there is no other choice: job prospects are low; peer pressure is high regarding drug or alcohol abuse; abuse at home etc.

And to use a quote from my father who joined the navy at 15 ' I joined the forces to see the world not to fight in a war'...this is probably the mindset of a lot of young men, unfortunately. I wonder how many young soldiers during the Great War and WW2 died with a look of shock on their face???
 
"Who is the vice president?"

"What was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence"

"What year did Columbus sail the ocean blue"

That's the No child left Behind program questions. Well since they fixed the problems with our education system, should work for elections just as well!
;)
 
That's the No child left Behind program questions. Well since they fixed the problems with our education system, should work for elections just as well!
;)

Nice way to inadvertently attack a Bush program. Don't get me wrong, NCLB is ridiculous, but guaranteeing a certain level of Civil understanding is different than allowing morons and illiterate mooks to pass 8th grade so they don't feel "left out".


Where is the shame in this country anymore? I think shame as a punishment should come back in a big way.
 
Well, to put it simply...the first one's an oligarchy, the second one's a dictatorship.

Personally, I don't care for either!

It'd be Oligarchy or Elitism if we picked a stupid reason to remove people from the voting process. What I seek to do is instead remove stupid people from the voting process, leaving the quasi-educated and on up to vote. We take voting rights away from felons, and yet we let complete morons vote.

Makes very little sense to me.

Yeah freedom of speech and the right to vote for your leaders are probably not all they're cracked up to be. ;)
 
Nice way to inadvertently attack a Bush program. Don't get me wrong, NCLB is ridiculous, but guaranteeing a certain level of Civil understanding is different than allowing morons and illiterate mooks to pass 8th grade so they don't feel "left out".

Just preposterous as testing to vote. Same questions too! LOL :mrgreen:
 
Yeah freedom of speech and the right to vote for your leaders are probably not all they're cracked up to be. ;)

You know, that comment would have been sarcasm many, many years ago, but now it's sad and true. We, as a Nation, have bastardized and manipulated the primary values of this country, and taken our advancements for granted and now, there is an infestation of apathy, ignorance, and plain stupidity that, when utilizing the Freedoms that make America great, makes America the butt of jokes world wide. FFS, FRANCE is making fun of US. I'm sorry, but didn't we help to un**** France?...TWICE!? And we were such good friends during the Revolutionary War. WTF happened guys. George Washington and Gilbert du Motier would **** their rotting pantaloons if they knew what was going on in the world today.
 
Just preposterous as testing to vote. Same questions too! LOL :mrgreen:

It would be preposterous if everyone had knowledge of civics and this tactic was used to target specific groups. unfortunately, this tactic would be used to trim the fat hanging off our Civic-Duty-Asses.
 
You know, that comment would have been sarcasm many, many years ago, but now it's sad and true. We, as a Nation, have bastardized and manipulated the primary values of this country, and taken our advancements for granted and now, there is an infestation of apathy, ignorance, and plain stupidity that, when utilizing the Freedoms that make America great, makes America the butt of jokes world wide.

It been that way for the last 4 decades, where have you been?
 
It would be preposterous if everyone had knowledge of civics and this tactic was used to target specific groups. unfortunately, this tactic would be used to trim the fat hanging off our Civic-Duty-Asses.

Voting for the privileged only. Hmmm.........I wonder why the founders never thought of that. Oh, they tell me a person used to have to own property, and blacks and women could not vote. Not smart enough don't you know. I guess they did think of it! LOL!
 
Voting for the privileged only.

Voting for those who know their political asshole from a hole in the ground.

Hmmm.........I wonder why the founders never thought of that. Oh, they tell me a person used to have to own property, and blacks and women could not vote. Not smart enough don't you know. I guess they did think of it! LOL!

First of all, Americans back then EARNED their right to vote more than most these days. They fought and bled for their rights. Those minority groups pushed the bounds of what was acceptable and they worked their asses off. They were, for the most part, proud of their country.

And once again, it's not targeting specific groups of people. Do driving tests discriminate between different ethnicities or women? No. These tests would not either. Everyone can vote so long as they can be responsible with their voting. And the questions would be simple enough for anyone who paid attention in Civics class to get. Like who is the current President, name the major Candidates running for each party, questions about naturalization, some American History to add that zing of excitement...Nothing more taxing or unfair than a driving test. It can be done.
 
My guess is that is why your perspective is skewed.

I can read books and research History and Civics. And it's a shame that I can see these things and others who have lived this long cannot.
 
Voting for those who know their political asshole from a hole in the ground.

And eliminate the conservative party from voting? I don't think they will go for it. LOL!

First of all, Americans back then EARNED their right to vote more than most these days. They fought and bled for their rights. Those minority groups pushed the bounds of what was acceptable and they worked their asses off. They were, for the most part, proud of their country.

LOL! Right, the blacks and women did nothing did they????

And once again, it's not targeting specific groups of people. Do driving tests discriminate between different ethnicities or women?

Driving is not a right.
 
I can read books and research History and Civics. And it's a shame that I can see these things and others who have lived this long cannot.

Obviously you do not if you think the American public has only recently been screwed up in their priorities. That is the way its been for most of our county's history.
 
Back
Top Bottom