Originally Posted by bulldogg

http://librariesfriend.com/FoundingFathers.html


http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features...on/voters.html


http://www.vdare.com/francis/founders.htm


http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

My apologies Chief Bones but you could not be more wrong. The founding fathers did not envision a true democracy and quite honestly looking at the history of our nation before 1965 and after... they were right and Johnson was wrong.

Now Bulldogg you can't say that, it goes against the liberal stance on most any subject.

Bulldogg
I don't disagree with your portrayal of our forefathers ... however ... if they could see their grand experiment and how well it has done, I am positive they would be against anything that disenfranchised the electorate as it now stands. They would consider it in the same vein of taxation without representation that faced them.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

Bulldogg
I don't disagree with your portrayal of our forefathers ... however ... if they could see their grand experiment and how well it has done, I am positive they would be against anything that disenfranchised the electorate as it now stands. They would consider it in the same vein of taxation without representation that faced them.

So you're changing your original claim?

I would further argue that modified claim as qouted here is possible but not probable given the facts that in their own lifetime they had no trouble denying the right to vote to 90-84% of their fellow male citizens a statistic which does not even take slaves or women into account. No, sir, the position of the founding fathers of the US is very clear on this point.

Now if you want to argue the position of the liberal agenda since the time of Andrew Jackson who extended the voting rights to all white males for the first time removing the qualification requiring the ownership of property in a move purposefully done to pander for votes... continuing right through Lyndon Johnson's 1965 fiasco which was calculated to secure the black vote in southern states wresting its allegiance from the Republican party to whom they had been loyal to since Lincoln and the emmancipation act (another calculated political move, not a moral one no matter what the revisionists say). Then sir you can assert your claims but not by aligning yourself with the unabashed elitists that were our founding fathers.

with respect to padding ones own canoe, (however you spell it)
i think that is the best idea ever, no wonder america is a world power today. they just need to go back to that basic idea and they'll continue to be a world power.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

So you're changing your original claim?

I would further argue that modified claim as qouted here is possible but not probable given the facts that in their own lifetime they had no trouble denying the right to vote to 90-84% of their fellow male citizens a statistic which does not even take slaves or women into account. No, sir, the position of the founding fathers of the US is very clear on this point.

Now if you want to argue the position of the liberal agenda since the time of Andrew Jackson who extended the voting rights to all white males for the first time removing the qualification requiring the ownership of property in a move purposefully done to pander for votes... continuing right through Lyndon Johnson's 1965 fiasco which was calculated to secure the black vote in southern states wresting its allegiance from the Republican party to whom they had been loyal to since Lincoln and the emmancipation act (another calculated political move, not a moral one no matter what the revisionists say). Then sir you can assert your claims but not by aligning yourself with the unabashed elitists that were our founding fathers.

I wish I could be as eloquent with my responses and better at attaching pertinent history to refute claims of those that see the glass as half empth.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

So you're changing your original claim?

I would further argue that modified claim as qouted here is possible but not probable given the facts that in their own lifetime they had no trouble denying the right to vote to 90-84% of their fellow male citizens a statistic which does not even take slaves or women into account. No, sir, the position of the founding fathers of the US is very clear on this point.

Now if you want to argue the position of the liberal agenda since the time of Andrew Jackson who extended the voting rights to all white males for the first time removing the qualification requiring the ownership of property in a move purposefully done to pander for votes... continuing right through Lyndon Johnson's 1965 fiasco which was calculated to secure the black vote in southern states wresting its allegiance from the Republican party to whom they had been loyal to since Lincoln and the emmancipation act (another calculated political move, not a moral one no matter what the revisionists say). Then sir you can assert your claims but not by aligning yourself with the unabashed elitists that were our founding fathers.

I am VERY aware of the biases of our founding fathers. What I tried to say, was that they would not have been in favor of disenfranchising a group of voters from the electorate based upon where our republican form government is at today. They would have viewed it as an attempt of taxation without representation (something they were opposed to themselves). Granted, during the early days of our new government, they had a very parochial view of those who could handle the responsibility of governing and thought there were a few groups that didn't have the education or knowledge to make decisions. Looking at today's politics, they would have realised that we had taken their grand experiment to the next level ... and ... I would hope they would have approved.

I don't believe that this is a change in my stance ... I guess I wasn't as articulate in my first post as I thought I was ... that is sometimes the major problem with the written word.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

What I tried to say, was that they would not have been in favor of disenfranchising a group of voters from the electorate based upon where our republican form government is at today.

They would have viewed it as an attempt of taxation without representation (something they were opposed to themselves).

Looking at today's politics, they would have realised that we had taken their grand experiment to the next level ... and ... I would hope they would have approved.

I don't see how you can make this claim for point one. They didn't even give the right to vote to 90% of their new countrymen. What makes you believe they would be proud of giving the right to vote to all and sundry? I believe very firmly based on the plethera of evidence from their own writing that they would be disgusted at having squandered what they bled for.

Taxation and voting are extremely different. One is deciding who will run the nation and the other is the government removing money from our pockets. Its a specious analogy. But even if we were to toss aside logic this claim can be further refuted in that the entire spiel about "taxation without representation" is a revisionist spin and part of the myth of America as true as the story of George Washington and the cherry tree and as the myth of the Boston tea party was in response to outrageous taxes.

Our founding fathers were greedy selfish men who realised they could be even more affluent if they threw off the crown and its taxes but it had nothing to do with being unrepresented. No sir, this point is total spin for they had no qualms whatsoever with passing taxes and levies as needed on the entire population of the fledgling US of A when they by calculated move had not enfranchised 90% of those being taxed by laws they were now passing.

Looking at todays politics I would be hard pressed to think they would do anything other than vomit uncontrollably. A bureacracy without end. A congress which has relinquished its authority. Career politicians. Political Action Committees and political parties. All of these things there is ample evidence that they had nothing less than unmitigated repulsion for.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

I am VERY aware of the biases of our founding fathers. What I tried to say, was that they would not have been in favor of disenfranchising a group of voters from the electorate based upon where our republican form government is at today. They would have viewed it as an attempt of taxation without representation (something they were opposed to themselves). Granted, during the early days of our new government, they had a very parochial view of those who could handle the responsibility of governing and thought there were a few groups that didn't have the education or knowledge to make decisions. Looking at today's politics, they would have realised that we had taken their grand experiment to the next level ... and ... I would hope they would have approved.

I don't believe that this is a change in my stance ... I guess I wasn't as articulate in my first post as I thought I was ... that is sometimes the major problem with the written word.

Disenfranchising voters? Isn't that what LBJ did in '64? Up until then the black vote in the U.S. had been republican and LBJ did his thing and shifted that portion of the vote by makeing them believe that the democratic party had their best interests at heart. We all know different, the dems are no different than the republicans. All of them are rich, why do they want to work for less than I make? To get richer of course!

Originally Posted by C/1Lt Henderson

The parades and monuments are what is keeping hope alive in the Big Easy. The parades and monuments keep people coming back to help rebuild New Orleans. The parades and monuments are a source of hope, inspiration, and pride for all those who are working so hard to build something out of nothing.

No silly this was prior to Katrina instead of using the funds to fix the levees they built monuments and had parades....

A lot of good those monuments and parades did stopping the levees from breaking...

You must look into things before you answer blindly it is a very good suggestion for all including myself....

-edit

People forget that their used to be an test (albeit limited) before you could register to vote.

I also retract my comment regarding bankruptcy since that may not have anything to do with your ability to make rational decisions. However if you require state aide for a prolonged period of time and are physically capable to work, i.e. not disabled, than your right to vote should be restricted until you are off of state aide.

Further more we have the right to bear arms but in many states you must take a class and pass exams to acquire a permit to carry a handgun.

Originally Posted by Donkey

No silly this was prior to Katrina instead of using the funds to fix the levees they built monuments and had parades....

A lot of good those monuments and parades did stopping the levees from breaking...

You must look into things before you answer blindly it is a very good suggestion for all including myself....

-edit

People forget that their used to be an test (albeit limited) before you could register to vote.

I also retract my comment regarding bankruptcy since that may not have anything to do with your ability to make rational decisions. However if you require state aide for a prolonged period of time and are physically capable to work, i.e. not disabled, than your right to vote should be restricted until you are off of state aide.

Further more we have the right to bear arms but in many states you must take a class and pass exams to acquire a permit to carry a handgun.

They couldn't help the levees, but they did give the people of New Orleans hope. THATS what my message was about. The fact that the parades and monuments that had occured in the past are what kept people in New Orleans coming back to re-build...Im saying that before Katrina, the pride in the city was extremely evident. When they had those parades and built those monuments, they had a good time, and THAT is what is keeping the people of Louisiana inspired. The fact that they will continue having those good times even though they had to work at it. It wasn't a blind answer, you misinterpreted it.