Originally Posted by C/1Lt Henderson

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.

It was a misappropriation of funds, corruption. Instead of fixing the problems they blew the money. Using this money in the way they did would not have made a difference to the people going there.

I am not misinterpreting you I just don’t see your logic. They where saying they didn’t receive funding to fix the levee system which they did they just chose to spend it on other things. I’m sorry but monuments and parades DO NOT stop levees from breaking. Had they not misappropriated the funding they possibly would not have had to rebuild and they could still have their parades and monuments. Regardless the main argument is the fact that they received funding to fix the levees and chose not to.

Originally Posted by C/1Lt Henderson

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.

You just confirmed the main point made by bulldogg - those who are used to depend on somebody's assistance CAN'T make the proper choices!
Let me tell a story that has happened long before Katrina...
In 1993 I just have come to this country. I have studied English in the synagogue and our teacher had a day job at the Greater Chicago Food Repository. It's a huge warehouse that supplies food for the poor in Chicag area, subkitchen, etc. One day, he has brought us some survey and asked us to fill it out. Then he has talked to us. He was very astonished with the results. One of the main questions on the survey(that was given to all or many of the Food aid recipients) has been: Are you concerned about your ability to find food for your family today, tomorrow, etc.). All members of our class (people with steady income) have been ALL concerned. Those, who were dependent on the food donations from others WERE NOT!!
They were sure that somebody, somehow will give them food, shelter, etc.
They have no responsibilities even before themselves and their families!
Why they should have rights? Here I mean rights to vote, not all the rights.
And they should be given every assistance if they want to get off the public aid!

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.

Chief Bones,

where do you see "taxation without representation"?

As far as I know, those on public assistance DO NOT PAY TAXES!!!

Why those who don't pay taxes decide(indirectly) how these taxes have to be collected from other people and spent?

I would say, here we see rather "Representation without Taxation"

...all we have to do is get rid of the 26th Amendment since it could be argued that it prohibits barring idiots from voting. I do think there is a vast difference in requiring someone be a landowner to vote and requiring that someone be self-sufficient at least to the point of not relying on the government as a lone means of support.

Letting welfare recipients vote is as bad as letting elected officials vote themselves a pay raise. Those who are indigent by their own free will will always vote for the man who signs their unearned paycheck.

Originally Posted by Donkey

It was a misappropriation of funds, corruption. Instead of fixing the problems they blew the money. Using this money in the way they did would not have made a difference to the people going there.

I am not misinterpreting you I just don’t see your logic. They where saying they didn’t receive funding to fix the levee system which they did they just chose to spend it on other things. I’m sorry but monuments and parades DO NOT stop levees from breaking. Had they not misappropriated the funding they possibly would not have had to rebuild and they could still have their parades and monuments. Regardless the main argument is the fact that they received funding to fix the levees and chose not to.

Right, they did, but what I'M saying is that even though the funds were spent in a different and immature manner, the monuments and parades were the symbol of hope to New Orleans citizens AFTER Katrina. They DID recieve the funding, I'm not disagreeing with you there...Im just saying the parades and monuments WERENT a waste of money. They were, and are, a symbol of pride. A symbol that no matter what the challenge, the US is up to it.

Originally Posted by moving0target

Letting welfare recipients vote is as bad as letting elected officials vote themselves a pay raise. Those who are indigent by their own free will will always vote for the man who signs their unearned paycheck.

Hear! Hear! This is indeed the point with letting these people vote. And after reading Boris's comments about taxation I would proffer that those who do pay taxes are suffering from "taxation with under-representation".

Freedom is actually responsibility, see Marinerhodes recent post on the topic for an eloquent discourse on the logic. Part of freedom in the US entails choosing the leaders of our government. If you demonstrate gross negligence and irresponsibility in your own affairs how can we as rational human beings afford you the opportunity to screw up our national affairs? To dumb it down... why do we have to suffer because you are a lazy ignorant wart on the arse of society??

I still think rebuilding New Orleans is an incredibly stupid idea.

Essentially, Congresses and Parliaments meet to legislate. All legislation costs money to enforce and many legislative bills are appropriations of revenue from citizens' taxes.

Therefore, only taxpayers should have the vote - that in my mind eliminates the unemployed but only for the duration of their unemployment, and convicted criminals for the duration of their imprisonment.

I would not exclude the elderly / pensioners because they have done their bit over their long years of employment.

How's that for a radical idea?

I kind of like how they handled it in Starship Troopers. Only citizens get the right to vote and to become a citizen you must first serve in the military.

They took that from ancient Sparta and later Rome. Indeed nothing new under the sun.