Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on August 15, 2007, 12:32:15 PM
-
...that every resident of the U.S. had to pass before they could vote, what questions would you write into it?
-
who was michael jackson?
Whens my birthday?
Who was the red thing in sesame street?
Are you an illegal alien?
Do you have a myspace?
if so what is the username and password?
do you play aces high?
If so meet me on LW blue nits.
:rolleyes:
-
all questions would be in English only
first question would be:
do you own a home?
if this was a no, then they failed and could stop there
-
Are you literate (preferably English)?
Are you now serving, or have you been honorably discharged from military service?
Do you now serve or have successfully completed a tour of federal or state service equivalent to military duty in lieu of military service?
-
This question is for legal citizens right?
Fine......
"What is your nationality"? - Any response that doesn't at least include "American", is a fail, and you will not vote.
-
I can't say yet.
As of Friday I will be no longer working for that Governemnt Agency. Then From what I have see working here over the last 8 years I'll tell you.
Phaser11 (2 more days)
-
Originally posted by Phaser11
I can't say yet.
As of Friday I will be no longer working for that Governemnt Agency. Then From what I have see working here over the last 8 years I'll tell you.
Phaser11 (2 more days)
This should be interesting...hehe
-
Can you currently, or have/are you taking steps to learn to speak english?
Are you a convicted Felon?
Can you think for yourself?
Is your IQ above 80?
Oh, and finally,
Given the right to vote, will you vote only for candidates that can pass this same test?
-
Not responding with the typical puppy dogs, popsycles or cotton candy joke to this.
Skuzz would ban me for life.
Mac
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Are you literate (preferably English)?
Are you now serving, or have you been honorably discharged from military service?
Do you now serve or have successfully completed a tour of federal or state service equivalent to military duty in lieu of military service?
The Heinlein paradigm. I like it!
Lets implement it but be specific about what jobs we are talking about for the "service" outside of uniform Military service. Being a state employed golf course employee and other less than service oriented positions shouldn't qualify for it. Something like Firefighter should qualify at all levels as long as a state certification is involved and it's full time.
No service, no voting. If you aren't willing to put your own arse on the line to protect the society you want to help direct, you don't get to vote.
TANSTAAFL
-
Originally posted by Maverick
The Heinlein paradigm. I like it!
No service, no voting. If you aren't willing to put your own arse on the line to protect the society you want to help direct, you don't get to vote.
TANSTAAFL
Congrats...You have just taken an already pathetic voter turn out, and slashed it in half!
-
Originally posted by Maverick
The Heinlein paradigm. I like it!
Lets implement it but be specific about what jobs we are talking about for the "service" outside of uniform Military service. Being a state employed golf course employee and other less than service oriented positions shouldn't qualify for it. Something like Firefighter should qualify at all levels as long as a state certification is involved and it's full time.
No service, no voting. If you aren't willing to put your own arse on the line to protect the society you want to help direct, you don't get to vote.
TANSTAAFL
Everyone who pays taxes, federal and/or state, labors, sweats and risks their body for the government.
A guy riding around in a patrol car is no more important than the guy stitching him up when he gets hurt, or the guy making sure his patrol car is up to spec, or the guy re-roofing his house. And for that doctor, mechanic or roofer, giving away a large portion of his income should be than enough to earn him the right to have a tiny voice in how it is spent.
Of course I'm sure a large majority of this nation's tax payers will be more than willing to work with you if you offer them tax reductions in exchange for their vote.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Congrats...You have just taken an already pathetic voter turn out, and slashed it in half!
I wouldn't care if less than 10% of the population was voting, so long as it was an educated, conscientious, responsible, well-informed-about-the-issues 10% of the population.
I can do without all the "straight ticket" and "he's got a nice smile" voters.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
educated, conscientious, responsible, well-informed-about-the-issues 10% of the population.
You didn't say anything about educated, conscientious, responsible or well-informed about the issues.
All you said was that they had to have served.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
I wouldn't care if less than 10% of the population was voting, so long as it was an educated, conscientious, responsible, well-informed-about-the-issues 10% of the population.
I can do without all the "straight ticket" and "he's got a nice smile" voters.
With all due respect, I know just as many uneducated, unconscientious guys serving in the military as I know educated and conscientious. I have a friend who had to take the ASVAB 5 times to get into the MC. Just because you served, doesn't make you an educated person. (And I say that with all the respect I can, because the guys and gals that do serve are heroe's, however, putting on a uniform doesn't equate to guranteed intelligence.)
-
1. Are you a legal citizen of the United States of America?
2. Are you 18 years of age or older?
3. Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
4. Who wrote the Star Spangled Banner?
5. Who made the first American flag?
6. What year was the Constitution of the United States signed?
7. How many stars are on the current United States flag?
8. How many stripes are on the United States flag?
9. Who was the first President of the United States?
10. What country did the United States win it's independance from?
What's really sad is that there is probably a large percentage of the population of this country that can't answer all 10 of those questions off the top of their heads.
-
what is your name
what is your quest
-
I think Starship Troopers had a nice idea. If you want to vote, serve your nation :D Everyone else are secondary-citizens. :aok
-
Those damn secondary citizens that give medical care to the soldiers when they are wounded....Or who provide legal services when one of those soldiers has problems...Or those secondary citizens who fly thousands of rounds of ammo for the soldier to shoot...Or those secondary citizens who teach the children of the soldiers...Or those secondary citizens who pick up the garbage and recycling of the soldiers...or those secondary citizens who manufacture the weapons AND clothing of the soldiers....
Yea....Screw those secondary citizens....Who needs them right?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Can you currently, or have/are you taking steps to learn to speak english?
Are you a convicted Felon?
Can you think for yourself?
Is your IQ above 80?
Oh, and finally,
Given the right to vote, will you vote only for candidates that can pass this same test?
Wow. I'll post this list somewhere concerning Russian citizenship. Unfortunately at least 50% of Russian citizens (as well as citizens in any other country) will fail this test :(
Heinleinism is good, but I think if I work for nothing in Academy of Science for 10 years now - am i worth citizenship? In fact I am working against the regime, my salary is 2 times less then survival minimum in Moscow, and our beloved Party and Government wants all us to disappear somewhere. I seriously expect them to make us pay for coming to work.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
all questions would be in English only
first question would be:
do you own a home?
if this was a no, then they failed and could stop there
I'd settle for landowner, even if they rent a house.
Only landowners should vote - landowners are the stakeholders of the United States of America. The rest are just passers by.
That shouldn't get a response.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Wow. I'll post this list somewhere concerning Russian citizenship. Unfortunately at least 50% of Russian citizens (as well as citizens in any other country) will fail this test :(
Less than or right around 50% vote as it is.
But you're right, an IQ of 80 may be too stringent a requirement.
If you work and pay taxes, you have a right to a voice in how those taxes are spent. Active service is not, nor was it designed as a test for intellect, reason, righteousness or even rationality.
-
Originally posted by storch
what is your name
what is your quest
And these:
What is your favorite color?
What is the capital of Assyria?
What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
-
If I was still 25 there would be no questions; just one rule: hot girls only.
-
wot? african or european?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
You didn't say anything about educated, conscientious, responsible or well-informed about the issues.
All you said was that they had to have served.
I was replying to the comment to slashing voter turnout than what some of my requirements would be.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
I'd settle for landowner, even if they rent a house.
Only landowners should vote - landowners are the stakeholders of the United States of America. The rest are just passers by.
That shouldn't get a response.
But only if they own a section or more, less and they are only serfs...don't have a big enough stake.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Russian
I think Starship Troopers had a nice idea. If you want to vote, serve your nation :D Everyone else are secondary-citizens. :aok
Germany has a good system setup which means everyone who wants to vote has to serve at least 2 years in a rehabilitation center or the military.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
6. What year was the Constitution of the United States signed?
1787
8. 7. How many stars are on the current United States flag?
51 after we add Iraq as Texas, Far East.
9. Who was the first President of the United States?
Under the Articles of Confederation (adopted March 1, 1781): John Hanson November 1981- November 1982.
Followed by Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) then some guy by the name of Washington in 1789 after the Constitution was adopted.
10. What country did the United States win it's independance (sic) from?
The British Empire. Who is the United State's giving up it's independence to is a tougher question to answer: China? WalMart? United Nations?
What's really sad is that there is probably a large percentage of the population of this country that can't answer all 10 of those questions off the top of their heads.
I missed #6 by a year, and at least knew enough to look up the names and dates for #9.
-
1.) Define and describe Supply and Demand in no fewer then 10 pages.
2.) Describe how this applies to everything. No less then 20 pages.
3.) List all powers the government has in the constition.
4.) List all powers forbidden to the government in the constitution.
5.) List all powers given to the people of the United States.
I believe this place would be so much better if everyone could answer those 5 questions.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
1.) Define and describe Supply and Demand in no fewer then 10 pages.
Ah, so it is "supply and demand" in Eng. Thanks.
Here in Russia anyone who can fit your first two points should be either deported or executed. Unfortunately they are in power now, so they, "free-market" freaks, try to eliminate all the others, such an endlossung of some kind, according to mr. Brzezinsky.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
1.) Define and describe Supply and Demand in no fewer then 10 pages.
2.) Describe how this applies to everything. No less then 20 pages.
3.) List all powers the government has in the constition.
4.) List all powers forbidden to the government in the constitution.
5.) List all powers given to the people of the United States.
I believe this place would be so much better if everyone could answer those 5 questions.
1 and 2 are fair
3, 4 and 5 are trick questions, and impossible to answer, as this always has and probably always will be re-examined and redefined by the Supreme Court.
It took an entire semester of Constitutional Law to really galvanize the point of just how constantly evolving this system is in regards to governmental and popular power.
-
No, 3, 4 and 5 have only ever changed when a new amendment was processed. The words don't morph on the page, they still mean the same things now that they did back then.
-
Understanding supply and demand has little to do with understanding who should hold the keys. Voting and politics is all about subsidies, tariffs, taxes and regulations that push, pull, squeeze and massage supply and demand to form markets these days.
-
I made up a test for employers to acertain if an applicant was a citizen:
1. Name 3 John Wayne Movies
2. Name 3 Gary Cooper Movies
3. Who was the 1st Playboy Centerfold?
4. How many fights did Rocky Marciano win?
5. Who was the 1967 Coach of the Green Bay Packers?
6. Explain the infield fly rule.
7. Who Played 1st base on the 1927 Yankees?
8. Who Played 3rd Base on the 1969 Orioles?
9. Name 4 Yankee Managers.
10. What was the name of the B29 that delivered greetings to Nagasaki?
there are 10 other questions, but those are the ones that come to mind now.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, 3, 4 and 5 have only ever changed when a new amendment was processed. The words don't morph on the page, they still mean the same things now that they did back then.
The words don't morph. The interpretations do. There're thousands of pages of case law demonstrate this pretty clearly. Situations when the government can tax, when the government can't tax, when the federal government can claim land from a state to set up a federal bank, when it can't, when federal government can collect toll on a road... How and when the Federal Government can impose penalties on farmers for growing one sort of crop verses another... When and how a President can and can't relieve an official of his post, etc...
It's excurtiating and it's ongoing, and it was designed to be that way. If the Constitution was anything but ambiguous, it would be thousands of pages long and still not come close to covering all the ground it has to cover.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I made up a test for employers to acertain if an applicant was a citizen:
1. Name 3 John Wayne Movies
2. Name 3 Gary Cooper Movies
3. Who was the 1st Playboy Centerfold?
4. How many fights did Rocky Marciano win?
5. Who was the 1967 Coach of the Green Bay Packers?
6. Explain the infield fly rule.
7. Who Played 1st base on the 1927 Yankees?
8. Who Played 3rd Base on the 1969 Orioles?
9. Name 4 Yankee Managers.
10. What was the name of the B29 that delivered greetings to Nagasaki?
there are 10 other questions, but those are the ones that come to mind now.
You surely have a strong cultural background.
Expecting other employees to follow your standard is cruel but fair.
I am happy that I can answer only 2 questions out of 10.
Can you please send me a private message explaining why John Wayne Gary Cooper are two persons, not four?
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
10. What country did the United States win it's independance from?
This question is asked of people applying for citizenship. The official answer incorrectly states 'England'. I've had more than one report of people administering the test taking exception at having this pointed out to them.
-
1. English written test, not less than 50 questions at first year college level.. or at the level of schooling their age requires ..high school level for high school age kids .. etc)
2. English oral test, including spelling, also at first year college level.
..a distant 3rd would be a smattering of History, overview of USA Govt heirarchy and how the branches 'work' (and I use the term loosely)
..and some basic knowledge of how the police work and when/why to call 911 and what to expect when you do.
If I moved to Mexico .. I would learn Mexican.
Not gonna learn it to live in the USA.. and those who come here and dont learn to speak English will always be second class citizens IMHO.
-Frank (and yes .. when our family lived in Weisbaden, I learned duetsch, way back when I was a kid )
-
If you're willing to learn English and pay your taxes I could really care less what else you know.
Heck, some of our leaders are dumb as mud. Why can't our regular Joe's be?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
The words don't morph. The interpretations do. There're thousands of pages of case law demonstrate this pretty clearly. Situations when the government can tax, when the government can't tax, when the federal government can claim land from a state to set up a federal bank, when it can't, when federal government can collect toll on a road... How and when the Federal Government can impose penalties on farmers for growing one sort of crop verses another... When and how a President can and can't relieve an official of his post, etc...
It's excurtiating and it's ongoing, and it was designed to be that way. If the Constitution was anything but ambiguous, it would be thousands of pages long and still not come close to covering all the ground it has to cover.
The interpretations don't change. Just the people. I can interpret the constitution to say that everyone gets a puppy. That does not mean it's true.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The interpretations don't change. Just the people. I can interpret the constitution to say that everyone gets a puppy. That does not mean it's true.
Interpretations change. The Supreme Court re-examines case law all the time, and reverse decisions regularly. Accordingly, the scope of powers are similarly re-examined and re-defined.
You know, Sailor, I think you and I agree on more issues than you think. Gun ownership, the benefits of a small government over a large one, freedom from taxes, the virtues of Central PA... All sorts of stuff.
Lighten up.
-
You missed the point. It's not the interpretations that change, but the people interpreting them.
-
Okay, the people change, and those people have the power to re-define the law in regards to what is and what is not constitutional. The words of the document stay the same, but their effect evolves...What do you call that?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Okay, the people change, and those people have the power to re-define the law in regards to what is and what is not constitutional. The words of the document stay the same, but their effect evolves...What do you call that?
Unconstitutional use of power.
-
So the Supreme Court's power is unconstitutional. Fair enough.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Those damn secondary citizens that give medical care to the soldiers when they are wounded....Or who provide legal services when one of those soldiers has problems...Or those secondary citizens who fly thousands of rounds of ammo for the soldier to shoot...Or those secondary citizens who teach the children of the soldiers...Or those secondary citizens who pick up the garbage and recycling of the soldiers...or those secondary citizens who manufacture the weapons AND clothing of the soldiers....
Yea....Screw those secondary citizens....Who needs them right?
You assume that those who have those jobs haven't served. I don't. Just because an individual is currently in a job outside of the military or a "Heinlein paradigm" recognized critical service to the nation / community doesn't mean they didn't serve an enlistment or in the recognized job field earlier that entitled them to vote.
As far as paying taxes is concerned, as long as the person is enjoying the roads and other tax paid services they are entitled to pay taxes to support that which they use. That means all services provided in the current society that are tax funded.
Now you may want to think that this sucks or not, I know it will never be implemented but I do think it has a nice bit of an idea to it. The one that says if you really care about something, you'll risk your own troglodyte arse to protect and serve it. That sacrifice of time and effort indicates that you just might be interested in what you are voting for and why rather than a simple sound bite or a handout from the government.
Of course like I said, it isn't very likely to ever be implemented, that's why I listed it as a paradigm. Paradigms very rarely implemented fully.
-
Sorry to be blunt about this, but active service, for a great many individuals, constitutes wasted time and energy. Where their talents could be implemented in ways that could generate more productivity, more income, and more support to the system which funds those in active service, any time taken away from these pursuits is just plain inefficient and wasteful.
And what the hell is this active service, anyway? Who qualifies? Do they have to be out in the field, getting shot at, or is sitting at a desk at a base enough? And if it is enough, exactly how is that 'troglodyte arse" being risked? Is working for the IRS good enough, how about the Passport Authority? The vast majority of these people don't do what they do because they 'care'. They do it because their jobs are mindless, their expectations are low, and their chances of upsetting their boss are negligible.
Here's a counter proposal...
Only people who work for themselves should get to vote. People who, instead of going to work, in whatever respect, for the giant entity that is the Federal Government, take the risk and improve this nation from the ground up.
People in the private sector need to produce results, or lose their shirt.
People working for the government, generally speaking, need only show up, if that
People in the private sector need to compete, directly, and do so successfully and constantly.
People working for the government, generally speaking, need only show up, if that.
People in the private sector need to be inventive, creative and aggressive, or lose their livelihood.
People working for the government.....
Afterall, who better embodies the American spirit than the independant businessman?
-
Neubob,
You sound very bitter. I don't know why you are but you certainly do sound like you are. Your conception of service is certainly rather derogatory and maybe that has something to do with the way you feel.
I'll say it one more time. It's a paradigm, kinda like if the world was a better place. It won't happen in today's society as too many aren't willing to put themselves out to serve others. They'd rather chase the almighty $ (or substitute any other form of exchange) for their own benefit and let the others fend for themselves.
I don't expect to see it and would be very very surprised if it was taken seriously. It's just a nice concept dealing with a demonstration of responsibility for ones actions for the greater good.
Just curious, have you read the book?
-
Neubob assumes Service to mean infantry. It does not. It means whatever you are capable of doing.
Know how to place and pave roads? Guess what you could be serving the government doing.
Have a law degree? Work for the government as a lawyer.
The only difference is that your time of service often varies based on danger and time it took to train you.
-
I'm bitter for two reasons.
First of all, any sort of policy that inches us closer to socialism, or anything resembling socialism depresses me greatly. There is too much to be gained that is inevitably lost through the inefficient allocation of talent and ability. This nation, which I truly do love, is starting to lose its edge in the world, and this bothers me. It bothers me greatly. Healthy free enterprise, in my opinion, is the only way to stay at the top.
On the topic of service, I believe that no citizen or resident can do a greater service to this country than to do what he or she does best. If that involves being a soldier or a firefighter, so be it, but if that involves being a landscaper or a doctor or a lawyer, the situation should not change. Everyone's tax dollars are green, and everyone's sweat is equally salty. Labor on behalf of the government is no better than labor on behalf of personal initiative.
And as mentioned earlier, working on personal initiative, in the private sector, for a company, for a contractor, for a firm, can be and often is harder, more taxing and more competetive. I've seen government employees in action, or lack of action I should say. The same sort of lackluster approach to work would not fly in the private world... What difference does it make paving a road and having the state sign your checks verses a private company? Independant companies do not tolerate inefficiency the way the government does... So what is the benefit of having Uncle Sam as your boss? What does it prove?
Do I support the army? Definitely. Do I support my local cops and firefighters? Definitely. I give to their organizations, on my own free will, annually. I just think that my support of those organizations, as well as the big one governing them all is best done in the way that I choose, verses a way regimented and overseen by what I consider to be an overgrown and inefficient system.
The second reason I'm bitter is that I have a pounding headache that hasn't gone away for days.
I have not read the book, but after all this, am curious to.
-
So since peon civillian pilots like me with a BS in Poly Sci and a MA in History are not in the military, should my rights to any state funded service be taken away too? I have no direct say in electing the people who will influence these services, so would the mere presence of a pathetically uneducated and unfit to vote individual like me be deterring from Billy Ray; the five time ASAB taking, because he couldn't distinguish the difference between a hammer and a saw, southerners experience?
-
Actually I don't think that public employees should have the right to vote, they have a vested interest in voting for higher taxes.
I once had a teacher state to me that she should not have to pay taxes because "she was just paying herself". I stood there waiting for the punch line and it never came, she was as serious as a heart attack.
shamus
-
I don't see Anything wrong about having to serve to vote, As long as people that server no longer get pensions, benefits or anything else after they leave the service,
I mean they are only there to help the country and the people right? Not so that they can retire in 20 years and have an easy life after.
-
Originally posted by Trell
I mean they are only there to help the country and the people right? Not so that they can retire in 20 years and have an easy life after.
That also fits the job description of many other careers outside of the military. But forget about those losers! HUAAAAH
-
And if members of the armed forces were the sole voice of the American people, think how it would change candidates now that they only have one demographic to appease.
Quit possibly the dumbest idea i've ever heard.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
That also fits the job description of many other careers outside of the military. But forget about those losers! HUAAAAH
those people if working for the government state or county are all paid by the people of the country,
Remember following this discussion they are the only ones that people want to vote.
If they work for a company and gets over paid then there share holders will fix that. or let the whole company will go belly up.
-
Originally posted by Trell
I don't see Anything wrong about having to serve to vote, As long as people that server no longer get pensions, benefits or anything else after they leave the service,
I mean they are only there to help the country and the people right? Not so that they can retire in 20 years and have an easy life after.
Actually, ONLY those who serve can get pensions and benefits.
You want welfare? Fine, do your 4 years of service. Then we'll talk.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, ONLY those who serve can get pensions and benefits.
You want welfare? Fine, do your 4 years of service. Then we'll talk.
Does this include family members of servicemen and women? Are your parents, and brothers and sisters eligible, or are they also unworthy of voting?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually, ONLY those who serve can get pensions and benefits.
You want welfare? Fine, do your 4 years of service. Then we'll talk.
So let me get this strait.
The ones who serves are the only ones that get to vote. Those that vote can vote for benefits for them selves as well as raises for them selves. and any one who does not serve still have to pay?,
Wow sounds like the senate house, and the CEO's of Americas.
Guessing your goal is to be that teacher that Shamus knows huh?
-
Ya know, I still cant understand for the life of me how by only allowing those who have served to able to vote will eliminate all that you claim it will.
Lets be honest...Anyone with a pulse, two arms and two legs and the ability to score a 25 on a ridicously simple test can find a job in the military. I'm not knocking anyone in uniform, but its the truth. And i'm sorry, but knowing how to read a radar scope, fire an M-16, or drive a tank does not equate to having any better understanding of laws or the political process than any civillian.
-
Some of y'all really need to read the book and a couple of the posts already entered in the thread. The idea of "service" is not strictly limited to the military, there were other ideas of "service" that gave the franchise to the person. Thanks though for posting your opinion of some of those who have served for real. It speaks volumes.
As far as pensions go. You have to serve for a career to get that, same as other forms of employment who have pensions as a benefit for working there. The franchise (voting) in the book was not predicated on serving 20+ years, but a single enlistment where the individual was free to choose whatever other career choice they wanted including private enterprise. "Having served" is not necessarily a life long commitment unless that is the career choice the service member made. It is not an exclusion to other jobs or careers.
Paving is normally done by private companies who bid on the job. Only immediate repairs and maintenance is done by "state employees". Those private companies were likely started by, gasp, private entrepreneurs some of whom might actually have served or not.
-
Maverick- No one has posted anything derogotory about anyone that has served...Me for example, I have merely pointed out that it is nieve to think that 100% of past, present and future service men and women are role model, Cross the T's, Dot the I's, Perfect humans...I don't think there is a career out there that would ever have 100% of this kind of person.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Maverick- No one has posted anything derogotory about anyone that has served...Me for example, I have merely pointed out that it is nieve to think that 100% of past, present and future service men and women are role model, Cross the T's, Dot the I's, Perfect humans...I don't think there is a career out there that would ever have 100% of this kind of person.
Actually there has been some derogatory comments about service members. Let me give you a couple examples, you might recognise them.
Originally posted by cav58d
Ya know, I still cant understand for the life of me how by only allowing those who have served to able to vote will eliminate all that you claim it will.
Lets be honest...Anyone with a pulse, two arms and two legs and the ability to score a 25 on a ridicously simple test can find a job in the military. I'm not knocking anyone in uniform, but its the truth. And i'm sorry, but knowing how to read a radar scope, fire an M-16, or drive a tank does not equate to having any better understanding of laws or the political process than any civillian.
"Anyone with a pulse", nice implication that the simple minded apply for the military there. Are you also implying that the "smart" wouldn't deign to be in the military? I never claimed it would eliminate anything BTW.
Originally posted by cav58d
I have no direct say in electing the people who will influence these services, so would the mere presence of a pathetically uneducated and unfit to vote individual like me be deterring from Billy Ray; the five time ASAB taking, because he couldn't distinguish the difference between a hammer and a saw, southerners experience?
Again the same implication, even more plainly stated.
Now once again I'd like to ask you to go back and read my first post on the subject here. Please note that I specifically mentioned other than military service as well as veterans. Also note that in none of my posts have I declared the military members were superior in intelligence to the non serving members, nor have I used derogatory terminology in regards to those who chose not to serve, either in the Heinlein paradigm I mentioned or in real life. I also didn't mention that you had to retire from the service to earn the franchise.
Like any other form of human enterprise there are those who are superior and inferior to the societal norm in intelligence in the military. To tar all of them with the the implication that they all fit the example that you used is rather disingenuous. I would also like to point out that being in private enterprise also is no guarantee of a superior intellect or education.
-
Maverick - I've never implied that the smart out to stay away from the military. I think you would find some of America's most academically brilliant men and women to be found throughout all the ranks of our military; enlisted and commissioned.
And the "Pulse" comment may have been harsh, but IMO it is true on a number of degrees. It's crazy to say that right now the military would not take anyone they possible could that met their mininum criteria. It's not offensive. It's the truth. The nice thing is, the military offers job selection for the most part off the asvab scores, and individuals are placed accordingly to what they qualify for.
The best part about the military is that it can take any individual, brilliant or foolish, and for the most part, make them proficient and a technical expert in their craft.
And I would say you meet twice as many, if not more complete fools in the private sector.
I think i've totally lost track on where I have been going with the past couple post, and it was never intended to bring any disrespect to any past present or future service man or woman.
It was simply my arguement countering what I mis-understood others arguements about personel in the military being flawless, and some how more worthy of participating in a democrocy over other individuals who choose other career paths, which happen to contribute an enourmous amount socially and economically to the United States.
Anyways, didn't mean to offend anyone, and if I did I apologize. I hope that clears things up.
-
Maverick- Your PMs are full so check e mail
-
Originally posted by Trell
So let me get this strait.
The ones who serves are the only ones that get to vote. Those that vote can vote for benefits for them selves as well as raises for them selves. and any one who does not serve still have to pay?,
Wow sounds like the senate house, and the CEO's of Americas.
Guessing your goal is to be that teacher that Shamus knows huh?
The chance to serve is not denied to anyone who is willing. And service does not necessarily mean military. On top of that, anyone who volunteers will serve doing SOMETHING.
All government benefits only go to those who serve their time. Complete college funding, complete healthcare, every right is guaranteed to the citizens. Every civilian can put in his service at any time he wishes. You can't fail out, but you can easily quit at any time you want.
I'm not espousing this doctrine, only explaining it. It's easy to see that most people here don't understand that Service does not equal only Military.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Some of y'all really need to read the book and a couple of the posts already entered in the thread. The idea of "service" is not strictly limited to the military, there were other ideas of "service" that gave the franchise to the person. Thanks though for posting your opinion of some of those who have served for real. It speaks volumes.
The other interesting facts that are being omitted from discussion of the "Heinlein Paradigm" are...
Persons on active service are NOT entitled tothe Franchise. Only after you have successfully completed your term of service can you exercise your franchise.
and
Only those who have the franchise may run for or serve in an elected office.
-
Only after you have completed your first term of service, could you vote. You could if you wanted, reenlist and continue to serve the government.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Maverick- Your PMs are full so check e mail
Cleaned out. I forgot that sent messages were saved and counted against the total. Doh!
-
That's true laser, but I believe the prohibition was no vote while serving. Kinda cuts back on the conflict of interest. The idea was that voting was something to be taken seriously, to serve in office was an obligation of honor as opposed to securing power or to satisfy greed in other words, both were a sacred trust to be earned, not merely handed out by accident of birth. That which is earned is often more valued than that which is given.
As I said before, this is a paradigm and not likely to be possible. More the pity.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Actually I don't think that public employees should have the right to vote, they have a vested interest in voting for higher taxes.
I once had a teacher state to me that she should not have to pay taxes because "she was just paying herself". I stood there waiting for the punch line and it never came, she was as serious as a heart attack.
shamus
I grew up during the time when career federal government employees were not allowed to vote. The reasons seem just as valid today as they seemed to me then.
-
Allowing women the right to vote was the downfall.
Women by nature are socialists. Socialism is bad. Men behave badly under socialism and women can not control that. Women want to change mens natures and that does not work.
Women vote in socialists who need a brutal regiem to enact socialism.. resist the state and have everything you own confiscated.. resist having your property confiscated and be killed.
women are not capable of seeing that this is the inevitable result. that their utopia can not exist without selfish and brutal men running it.
women should not vote.
lazs