• 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!

Is the European Union a good thing?

Is the European Union a good thing?


  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .
I already have...
No.. That's the statement you made. Reastating your statement does not support your statement.

The definition of fascism you provided doesn't support the idea that your statement is an example of fascism, as the proposal under discussion...
-is not authoritarian
-is not nationalist
-has nothing to do with a corporatist economy
-has nothing to do with the ideologies associated with the above

The sole purpose of such a law would be to give one group of people power over another, period.
No... the sole purpose of the law is to make sure that a certain group of people does not use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society. Period.
THAT is a good idea. Period.

This country would no longer be a Representative Republic. It would put us on the road to a Fascist state.
Not according to your definition of fascism.

The US Constitution says that each citizen gets 1 vote...
The US Constitiution does not say EVERYONE gets one vote; as you have agreed, some people can be prohibited from voting.

...regardless of how much money he or she makes, period.
Strawman:
The proposal in question does not rest upon income; no one with $0 in income is necessarily barred from voting.

Now add the voting rights legislation in 1965 and Constitutionally it fails.
The VRA doesnt define the Constitution. There are numerous Constituionally valid restructions on who can vote; to argue that a restriction on who can vote, in and of itself violates the Constitution is unsupportable.

No it's not. It is nothing but a power play to silence the poor.
No, its to make sure that a certain group of people does not use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society
How is that NOT a good idea?
You WANT a certain group of people to be able to their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society?
THAT is a good idea?

Yes it is, so what?
How is it more arbitrary that limiting voting age to 18?
 
I think that is a really bad idea. The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 pretty much agrees.

A disagreement supported by an appeal to authority, hence illogical.

I don't think voting should be based on anything other than being a citizen and not convicted of a felony.

So, you do not believe in restricting a person's ability to vote unless you think it's okay? Arbitrary much?

All that would come of this is tyranny of one group over another.

That's what we have right now - a system where net tax-consumers utilize government proxy to relieve net tax-payers of their hard-earned money.

Taxes used as a weapon against the poor. Again this is a really bad idea.

Your entire premise presupposes that a poor person HAS to become indebted to society. If their "right" to vote is so important to them then they can simply choose not to receive government assistance. If they wish to live off the largesse of society then they should be obligated to sacrifice something.

You want MY money? Fine, then give me your vote, and while you're living off MY hard-earned dollar you can let ME figure things out for you. Don't like the sound of that? Then don't walk into the god-damned unemployment office with your hand out...
 
I can sum this up right now.

In this country we do not have a plebeian system. A persons worth to society can not be summed up by any monetary amount, and should not be.

If you think in this case you are correct, let me propose this: You have not served in the military, you have not given enough to society, and have reaped the benefits of my service. So you should not be able to vote until such time as you do serve.

Now my statement above is unreasonable, and just as unreasonable as what you suppose.
 
I can sum this up right now.
In this country we do not have a plebeian system. A persons worth to society can not be summed up by any monetary amount, and should not be.
Strawman:
Nothing here discusses, concerns, or revolves around a persons' worth.

You have not served in the military, you have not given enough to society, and have reaped the benefits of my service.
Strawman, red herring, non-sequitur:
The issue here is direct benefit of an individual though government payment versus direct contribution to the goverment via taxation. Indirect benefit of a society though ann indirect contribution my a number of the members of that society is a seperate, and non-comparable, issue.

Now my statement above is unreasonable...
Its also not comparative in any relevant way.

and just as unreasonable as what you suppose.
You still have not explained how the proposal is any more arbitrary tna limiting the voting age to 18+

Why do you want a certain group of people to be able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society?
 
Last edited:
Strawman:
Nothing here discusses, concerns, or revolves around a persons' worth.

Yes it does and I quote...

"the sole purpose of the law is to make sure that a certain group of people does not use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society. Period."

Worth meaning monetary input into society through taxes.


Strawman, red herring, non-sequitur:
The issue here is direct benefit of an individual though government payment versus direct contribution to the goverment via taxation. Indirect benefit of a society though ann indirect contribution my a number of the members of that society is a seperate, and non-comparable, issue.


Its also not comparative in any relevant way.

Bull. It is exactly the same. Because you have served you should not be able to vote because you have reaped the benefit of my service to my country.

Yes it is exactly the same.

You still have not explained how the proposal is any more arbitrary tna limiting the voting age to 18+

Yes I have.
 
Strawman:
You still have not explained how the proposal is any more arbitrary tna limiting the voting age to 18+

Forgot to mention...

This has nothing to do with arbitrary anything. It has to do with all people having a fair shake in the government they live under.

Everyone should have a voice. Like I said I disagree that felons after serving their sentence are still not allowed to vote as being unfair. Why would I think this type of thing would be any less a breach of liberty?
 
Last edited:
All you've summed up with the preceding monologue is your inability to logically rebut the points I've made.

Until we live under a plebeian system you have no point really.

I have already covered most of what you said in preceding posts. No need to retype all of it.
 
Yes it does and I quote...

"the sole purpose of the law is to make sure that a certain group of people does not use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society. Period."

Worth meaning monetary input into society through taxes.
1: Your "sole purpose" statement is incorrect, as has been demonstrated
2. No ones 'worth" is defined by the money they pay in taxes by this proposal; the proposal does not judge the worth of the person, but the propriety of allowing somene to use his political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society.

Bull. It is exactly the same.
No...
One is a direct, quantifiable benefit pad to an individual by the government compared to the direct, quantifiable contribution paid TO the government by that individual; the other is an indirect, unquantifiable benefit provided to everyone by the givernment.
Thats only remotely similar; it is by no means "exactly the same".

You still have not explained how the proposal is any more arbitrary than limiting the voting age to 18+
Yes I have.
Please: Provide the quote of you doing this.

Then answer the question:
Why do you want a certain group of people to be able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society?
 
Until we live under a plebeian system you have no point really.

I have already covered most of what you said in preceding posts. No need to retype all of it.

You haven't rebutted anything I said, but if you want to pretend like you have then, by all means, don't let reality get in your way.
 
Forgot to mention...
This has nothing to do with arbitrary anything.
YOU claimed that the proposal was arbitrary.

It has to do with all people having a fair shake in the government they live under.
It has MORE to do with people not being able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society.

Why do you want a certain group of people to be able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society?

Everyone should have a voice.
All you have to do to have that voice is give as much as or more than you take.
 
1: Your "sole purpose" statement is incorrect, as has been demonstrated
2. No ones 'worth" is defined by the money they pay in taxes by this proposal; the proposal does not judge the worth of the person, but the propriety of allowing somene to use his political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society.

Yes I have. What is a vote if not to put forth your own agenda? Again you are trying to restrict another's right to have a voice in their government by how much welfare they collect in whatever form including unemployment insurance vs the taxes they pay.

No...
One is a direct, quantifiable benefit pad to an individual by the government compared to the direct, quantifiable contribution paid TO the government by that individual; the other is an indirect, unquantifiable benefit provided to everyone by the givernment.
Thats only remotely similar; it is by no means "exactly the same".

It is the same.


Please: Provide the quote of you doing this.

Then answer the question:
Why do you want a certain group of people to be able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society?

They have the same opportunity and one vote as everyone else, period.

This does not give them anymore power or ability than anyone else.
 
Last edited:
YOU claimed that the proposal was arbitrary.

It is, but that is not the focus of my argument and you know it.

It has MORE to do with people not being able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society.

Someone being able to vote is not at the expense of society. It is what makes us a society where people are supposed to have a voice.

Why do you want a certain group of people to be able to use their political power to further advance their own self-interest at the expense of the rest of society?

I want every citizen of the US to have a voice in our government. To silence one group or another goes against the very fabric of what the US is supposed to represent.

All you have to do to have that voice is give as much as or more than you take.

True freedom has no such restriction.
 
Yes I have.
Yes you have... what?

What is a vote if not to put forth your own agenda?
The issue isnt agenda, the issue is using political power for personal benefit at the expense of society.

Again you are trying to restrict another's right to have a voice in their government by how much welfare they collect in whatever form including unemployment insurance vs the taxes they pay.
Yes... for the perfeclty legitimate reasons stated - that people should not be able to use their political power for ther own personal gian, at the cost of the rest of society.

It is the same.
I have demonstrated otherwise.

They have the same opportunity and one vote as everyone else, period.
This dies not give them anymore power or ability than anyone else.
You did not answer my question.
 
Then show how it is more arbitrary than the other restrictions placed on the right to vote.

Someone being able to vote is not at the expense of society
No... but taking from society more than you give to it (which is the issue here ) is.

It is what makes us a society where people are supposed to have a voice.
Are we supposed to be able to use our political power to benefit ourselves at the expense of others?

I want every citizen of the US to have a voice in our government. To silence one group or another goes against the very fabric of what the US is supposed to represent.
And yet, you agree that the right to vote does not apply to everyone.

True freedom has no such restriction.
True freedom also means that people cannot force you to give them the means necessary to promote their own self-interest.
 
Then show how it is more arbitrary than the other restrictions placed on the right to vote.

The other restrictions outside of the felony law restrict no one who is an adult.

No... but taking from society more than you give to it (which is the issue here ) is.

What someone takes or gives is not really anyones business but their own unless they infringe on someone else's rights.

Are we supposed to be able to use our political power to benefit ourselves at the expense of others?

No.

And yet, you agree that the right to vote does not apply to everyone.

If they are not a citizen or underage, no it does not. Has nothing to do with your argument.

True freedom also means that people cannot force you to give them the means necessary to promote their own self-interest.

And yet a vote is nothing more than self interest when you get right down to it. You would stifle someones right to vote based purely on some kind of monetary loss or gain from the government.

Sorry, still does not float.
 
luners mate do you think I do not sympathize with your sentiments a bit.

Dont forget my Serbian mother in law and my Croatian father in law were in there house in Drnis when the Serbian Tanks rolled over the hills at the back of the house.

I do not wish to talk of the atrocities that happened in Drnis and Knin then or when General Ante Golovina returned to drive the Serbs out.

I was in Serbia last year the Pizda's are becoming harder to find, the majority of the young like in Northern Ireland want peace and prosperity, should we deny them this because of the sins of there ancestors, that game is entreched in the black heart of Balkan Nationalists.

Has our royal family not met with the Japanese royal family, is Germany not part of th EU, should we deny the Turks because of what the ottermans did.

Paisley sits with McGuinness and Adams

I see what you are saying - but none of the examples other than maybe the Japanese applies to the Serbs, because as like the Serbs there has never been any recognition of their guilt and war crimes committed.

Serbs always attempt to blame others for all terrible crimes committed by the Serbian people and their militia. And until they collectively admit their guilt then they will be held as a nation collectively repsonsible and still yet to atone for their crimes!

So Serbia must never be permitted into the EU, infact ship the lot of them out of Europe and back to Russia where they belong.....

I think it was an editorial in your favouried Guardian newspaper that wrote something along the lines of :

"The air of Europe would be much improved if the nation of Serbia could be towed into the medeterian and sunk"
 
Last edited:
The benefits of the EU far outweigh the negatives of the EU.... for now at least.
 
The benefits of the EU far outweigh the negatives of the EU.... for now at least.
Indeed, "for now" is the correct way to say it.
Because in the long term, it is a disaster.
 
Indeed, "for now" is the correct way to say it.
Because in the long term, it is a disaster.

Not so. If that were true then all great unions would be a disaster, and I doubt you would call the US a disaster... well at least yet.
 
Not so. If that were true then all great unions would be a disaster, and I doubt you would call the US a disaster... well at least yet.
Right.
Because all of the great unions are the same thing, uh-em. :)
 
Nationalism is the most ridiculous ideology on the planet. Being proud because you were born on a piece of ground that happens to be under the jurisdicition of a government and a flag. Awesome. It's essentially the largest 'I'll take credit and be proud of something I had little, if anything, to do with' ideology. Nations exist to divide - bring on the EU and the AU.
 
Not so. If that were true then all great unions would be a disaster, and I doubt you would call the US a disaster... well at least yet.

As I said before, the idea to have one common supranational organization with all the European states as members is great, but it is a serious problem that European insitutions loosing touch with its population.

We can only vote the European parliament with its limited competences.
 
Nationalism is the most ridiculous ideology on the planet. Being proud because you were born on a piece of ground that happens to be under the jurisdicition of a government and a flag. Awesome. It's essentially the largest 'I'll take credit and be proud of something I had little, if anything, to do with' ideology. Nations exist to divide - bring on the EU and the AU.

So you can't be proud of your race, religion, or for that matter anything at all?

Nations exist to unite, not divide.
 
I don't see why you should be. You had very little do with it. Admiration and pride are two very different things.

Nations have divided since the Westphalian soverignty system came into place. See wars and culturual superiority complex of people like Hitler. The very notion that we're arguing about nationality should be a hint that it doesn't always unite.
 
Back
Top Bottom