Senior Chief
Banned
Now Bulldogg you can't say that, it goes against the liberal stance on most any subject.
A must read for Americans
Now Bulldogg you can't say that, it goes against the liberal stance on most any subject.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
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.
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.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
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.
Last edited:
Senior Chief
Banned
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.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
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.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
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.
Senior Chief
Banned
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!
Donkey
Active member
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.
Last edited:
Rob Henderson
Banned
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.
Donkey
Active member
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.
boris116
Active member
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!
boris116
Active member
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"
moving0target
Active member
...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.
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.
Rob Henderson
Banned
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.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
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".
:brave:
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??
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? :camo:
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? :camo:
Last edited: