Politicial Poll - Sorry Yet?

[Duffy]

... Wouldn't we love to have a conservative leader that can speak like Obama emerge? I don't see any in the current crop.

Are you suggesting there are currently no conservatives that can lie with a straight face or read a teleprompter?    

Just kidding!    Sort of.

Well, to my knowledge, none that can do it as well as Obama has. 

[Willow]

... Wouldn't we love to have a conservative leader that can speak like Obama emerge? I don't see any in the current crop.

Are you suggesting there are currently no conservatives that can lie with a straight face or read a teleprompter?    

Just kidding!    Sort of.

Well, to my knowledge, none that can do it as well as Obama has. 

Touche!   

[valkmc]

I understand how the house works, I also understand control of slaves was not humane no matter what spin was put on it. I believe history bore that out.

Hold on, you are spinning he 2/3'rds thing like it was a big time racist bad thing, that is a bald faced whopper. The FACT is that the racisits were pushing for slaves to be counted as a whole person. It isnt spin, it was a power play by the slave states to control the destiny of the country because they could see the writing on the wall. Slavery was a dying enterprise world wide. The fact that people take it out of context and try to play fast and loose with the truth is stuff CBS loves. No one EVER said control of slaves was humane. Counting them as 2/3'rds was humane because it brought slavery to an end faster was humane. If they had been counted as a whole person, a non voting person, the slave states would have had the representation to continue being slave states and would have been in control of the house and had more votes in the electorial college. I would figure putting the enslavers in charge for the forseeable future would be a tad worse than holding the line.

Ya see, our country is founded on choosing the lesser of 2 evils. Like it or not. Has been from the start. There is a simple reason for it, I dont agree with you most of the time. Thats it, the answer. If you like 100% of what a canidate stands for then you dont think for yourself.

I might like only 90% of a canidates or partys platform, someone else might only like 55%. In all of those cases we get to pick a canidate the MOST represents us. Toss in a third party and we get reps who have less than 50% of the vote like 3rd world countries. In the case of the 2/3rds, our reps chose the lesser of 2 evils because they had already tried to go all the way in the beggining. It was attempted to make this country a slave free country during the founding, however they needed the slave states to be successful and the slave states would not ratify without being able to have slaves. It took a while, but it happened.

As to getting to say who votes and who doesnt, people under 18 cant vote. Some felons can't vote. Puerto Ricans can't vote. Up until 1961 residents of DC coundnt vote. (there was another glaring error) We pick and choose all the time. If 50% of the voting population gets largess from the govt after it sticks a gun to the heads of the other 50% and takes what they earned, there is a problem. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?

You make many valid points however, the 2/3rd's think can be looked at several ways, many people feel that if our founders had stood up to the slave states and said we are not owning others for economic gain, slavery would have ended much faster than it did, remember it took from 1789 until the 1860's to end it, (how many lives were destroyed during that time?) yes it may have been difficult and our country may have been different today. The real reason 2/3rd's was allowed had nothing to do with ending slavery or being humane it was a political back room deal. Our founders had no interest in ending it and most of them wrote to that effect, there were very few who even suggested it most of them wanted to stop it from spreading because they realized it was going to be a problem down the road, many of the founders owned slaves.

I agree with you on the fact that there is criteria for voting in the country, I don't agree that being under 18 and being a non-taxpayer are even in the same area. People under 18 are considered minors and do not have many rights, non-taxpayers could be eliminated from voting because of their economic status. I realize some people think all non-taxpayers are in the shape they are because they are lazy or made bad choices, that is simply not true. Some get that way through no vault of their own. (just to avoid confusion I pay my local state and federal taxes and do not receive any gov supplements of any kind  so I am not speaking as someone who wants anyone elses money, I have my own, my own Med. Insurance and my own retirement)

I do enjoy reading your points of view, I don't think because mine are not they same as yours, such as the 2/3rd's thing, mine should be called a lie. There are plenty of citizens and historians that will tell you the whole 2/3rd's thing was racist, I guess it just depends what filters your are looking through.



 

[JimL]

I agree with you on the fact that there is criteria for voting in the country, I don't agree that being under 18 and being a non-taxpayer are even in the same area. People under 18 are considered minors and do not have many rights, non-taxpayers could be eliminated from voting because of their economic status. I realize some people think all non-taxpayers are in the shape they are because they are lazy or made bad choices, that is simply not true. Some get that way through no vault of their own. (just to avoid confusion I pay my local state and federal taxes and do not receive any gov supplements of any kind  so I am not speaking as someone who wants anyone elses money, I have my own, my own Med. Insurance and my own retirement)

To paraphrase your above statement, I agree with you that not all non-taxpayers are in the shape they are because they are lazy or made bad choices.  I have discovered through the years that there are very few "absolutes" in this world, inevitably, given enough time there will almost always be an exception to a rule or generalization.  However I also believe that generalizations become generalizations for a reason, and that reason is that the majority of the people that find themselves under these conditions generally exhibit common behaviors.  Smart people had better be aware of these behaviors and not succumb to public pressure to ignore them.  If I am a police officer and I see an 18 year old male (race is unimportant) driving a $100,000 automobile, stereo booming Tupac Shakur "kill a cop" lyrics...I'm going to make a judgment that I am going to take a second look at what this guy is up to....and most importantly I am going to proceed with caution.  Of course, It very well may turn out that this guy is an overwhelmed medical student blowing off some steam after a tough exam.  Regardless, I will approach the situation the very same way the next time if I want to live to see retirement.

There will be many who will call me a heartless conservative, but I approach the non-taxpayer the same way.  I have seen too many people spend every dime they have on i-phones, i-pods, designer jeans, tanning salons, $200 shoes, $500/mo car payment, etc.; and then complain that they need government assistance to pay college tuition; and other government entitlements to pay for necessities that are now unfunded because of the i-phone .  I have seen this exact scenario in my extended family....it sickens me.  Ostensibly their plight is due to circumstances beyond their control, the reality is that the majority of the time it is because of misguided priorities, poor choices and a conviction that somehow they are "entitled" because there are others that are so much better off.

I am a firm believer that people like this should not be making decisions that affect the taxpayers of this country.  In this respect I take the opposite view of Sir William Blackstone when he once stated: "That its better for ten guilty men to walk free than one innocent man to be convicted"....it is my belief in this particular case that it is better for one "innocent" non-taxpayer to lose the opportunity to vote their opinion than allow ten "irresponsible" non-taxpayers to vote themselves additional entitlements.

I am now stepping down from my soap box....

[Jabba]

How about a "Net lifetime positive contributor to society" litmus test.  If you have put in more than you've taken out... you get to vote.  Amount does not matter.  A positive contributor may "enable" their spouse... so a lifelong stay at home mom/dad can still participate.

That'll get the welfare rats out of the polls.

I know... I am a racist, heartless SOB.

Jabba

[Varmintmist]

Just a thought.
When you have about 50% of the voters that have no financial stake in the system except to vote themselves stuff, do you think that they will ever vote to be pulled off the teat? The founders had it right when they made it so that only tax PAYERS voted.

In the history of this country, voting rights have never been limited to tax payers.  In 1776, when this country announced its independence from Britain, voting rights were limited to land owners.  American citizens didn't even pay federal taxes at that time.  If you recall your history lessons, the first federal statutes imposing the legal obligation to pay a federal income tax were adopted by Congress in 1861 and 1862 to pay for the Civil War.

That said, your basic premise is not without merit, I just had an overwhelming need to keep history reasonably accurate.

Landowners were not the only ones to vote after the revolution, only pre revolution. Taxes were collected on goods produced. Goods were produced by the owners of the farm/buisness, the landowners. Landowners were just about the only ones who paid taxes. Post revolution some states changes it to Taxpayers Only and dropped the landowner option since more people were taxed now. Thus, only the taxpayers voted. 
Income was actually income instead of wage, which is what we tax now. To have income you must have investments that make money. A wage is you bartering your time for units, dollars, chickens, saftey chrome, whatever.

[JimL]

How about a "Net lifetime positive contributor to society" litmus test.  If you have put in more than you've taken out... you get to vote.  Amount does not matter.  A positive contributor may "enable" their spouse... so a lifelong stay at home mom/dad can still participate.

That'll get the welfare rats out of the polls.

I know... I am a racist, heartless SOB.

Jabba

Jabba, I agree that there definitely needs to be some kind of litmus test.  If you don't have any skin in the game, you shouldn't be involved in framing the rules of the game.

[Varmintmist]

I don't think because mine are not they same as yours, such as the 2/3rd's thing, mine should be called a lie. There are plenty of citizens and historians that will tell you the whole 2/3rd's thing was racist, I guess it just depends what filters your are looking through.

The simple fact is we wouldnt have been a country at all if the deal wasnt done. The option was, have a country that we just fought a war to have, or pitch the whole thing as a exersize.

Anyone who can look at the actual history and call the 2/3'rds thing racist is looking through a opaque filter. Most of those who bring it up do in the same context you did, to belittle the founders and/or take a shot at a speaker or poster  either hoping that they dont know what the real deal was, or not knowing themselves. I agree that a lot of citizens think its racist, and I also know that a lot of citizens are pretty weak on US history.

That blacks were counted as 2/3rds is a fact, as far as it goes. Had blacks been counted as a whole, that would have been racist. Remember, the ONLY reason for counting them AT ALL was to give slave states representation in govt. Prior to the 2/3rds, they were not counted.

[valkmc]

I don't think because mine are not they same as yours, such as the 2/3rd's thing, mine should be called a lie. There are plenty of citizens and historians that will tell you the whole 2/3rd's thing was racist, I guess it just depends what filters your are looking through.

The simple fact is we wouldnt have been a country at all if the deal wasnt done. The option was, have a country that we just fought a war to have, or pitch the whole thing as a exersize.

Anyone who can look at the actual history and call the 2/3'rds thing racist is looking through a opaque filter. Most of those who bring it up do in the same context you did, to belittle the founders and/or take a shot at a speaker or poster  either hoping that they dont know what the real deal was, or not knowing themselves. I agree that a lot of citizens think its racist, and I also know that a lot of citizens are pretty weak on US history.

That blacks were counted as 2/3rds is a fact, as far as it goes. Had blacks been counted as a whole, that would have been racist. Remember, the ONLY reason for counting them AT ALL was to give slave states representation in govt. Prior to the 2/3rds, they were not counted.

I wasn't taking a shot at anyone. I did not bring up the founders you did, many people try to use them as the all knowing people who got everything right. I believe that is what you were doing when you said they got it right (taxpayer remark). I was just pointing out they were not perfect they were people struggling to develop something.

You also keep stating that they did what they did to save the country, I am glad you know what would of happened if they had refused the deal, I have know way of knowing what would have happned. I do know from reading alot of history that the founders in no way considered ending slavery, that was not on the table. Many of the founders owned slaves and that is fact. The two gentlemen most noted for developing the comprmise wrote extensivley on it, I have read alot of it and don't recall either of them stating they thought the country would disolve.  Anyone who doesn't believe that economics, the protection of their own property and way of life as the elite of the country did not enter into any of the decisions does not  believe these men were human. I will say again they did a great job under the circumstances, and as someone who reads enough history to form my own opinions and not believe what the general public believes, owning people of another race is racist and compromise allowing it for the reasons put forth was also racist. However I was not there and do not pretend to think I could have done better.