Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on January 02, 2008, 10:41:49 AM
-
IMHO was NOT the intentions of the Founders of this country.
They gave many reasons for their decision this only expresses a portion of that
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/02/i-dont-want-your-kid-to-vote/
Best way I heard it put was.............
"If you are not helping to pull the wagon, but taking a free ride in it while others pull, then you have NO right to decide where it is going."
They also looked at the ancient Greeks and saw that a Democracy was NOT the way to go.
They SEEMED to believe that many, once they learned the power of their vote, would vote themselves Circuses and Bread as the Romans did.
Thus we originally had a Representative Republic with a somewhat LIMITED voting privileges.....
Very often one had to show they were propertied or reasonably able to support themselves and their family, as in gainfully employed.
Part of the reason for the changes began right after the Civil War when the Confederate states did all they could to prevent Freed Slaves from voting. In that they tried their best to ignore or prevent those blacks that had the necessary qualifications from voting.
The Founders didn't want those on Welfare voting themselves MORE and better Welfare.
The Welfare System that was already in place in Great Britain was looked at by Benjamin Franklin, who responded with an explanation as to why America did NOT have such a system but used what was known as "Poor Houses".
That system was in place until sometime around the 40's or perhaps 50's but in the 60's many things changed.
Thank You LBJ.
If you watch some of the really old movies (Circa 1930's) you can hear comments by wives to husbands about being driven into the "Poor House" by their husband's mismanagement of their lives.
People tended to rely on Family and Friends a great deal more for their survival then they do now. This approach tended to create a greater sense of Family and Friends PLUS the added responsibility and appreciation toward Family and Friends which resulted in that same responsibility and appreciation being applied to others as well.
You can also find references to the 2nd Amendment in some of those old movies. I recall one where someone, ( I can remember the actors face and voice but not his name ) is telling a Politician or Rich Powerful individual that was trying to do something really BAD... "You can't do that! There are Millions of people out their and they're ARMED!"
-
[sarcasm]
Blame Andrew Jackson. He's the bastard that allowed men WITHOUT property to vote! That's a downright outrage! :mad:
"The Founders didn't want those on Welfare voting themselves MORE and better Welfare."
You're right! The poor had ample welfare back then! Privately owned orphanages are more than enough:rolleyes:
I agree, lets get our better judgement for the future from 70-80 year old movies. Grapes of Wrath is a perfect example of poor people getting what's coming to them! That is until that darn government of theirs made that community for them to live in.
[/sarcasm]
-
<>>
the NFL and food stamps?
-
More like "wrestling" and food stamps. It costs money to see football.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
More like "wrestling" and food stamps. It costs money to see football.
It's no longer the dirt of the colosseum, or the marble floor of the senate.
It's the phosphor dots' of the Television, and the 1st and the 15th of the month.
(I might refrain from sticking on that 1st and 15th one, though. Many things' could be substituted for that, Welfare and TV are not the only factors that make the large majority of America apethetic.)
-
It's foolish to think that the uninformed voters are only those under 21. Just take a look at the Democratic party if you need further evidence.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's foolish to think that the uninformed voters are only those under 21. Just take a look at the Democratic party if you need further evidence.
You could say the same about the Republican Party or any political party for that matter. It's only the idiotic and the ignorant that think the Republican Party is the party with the answers.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
You could say the same about the Republican Party or any political party for that matter. It's only the idiotic and the ignorant that think the Republican Party is the party with the answers.
ack-ack
No, not really. The great thing about common sense is that it's a one way street.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, not really. The great thing about common sense is that it's a one way street.
Common Sense should point out the utter uselessness of supporting either the Dems' or the Republicans' anymore. They are both rotten and corrupt, to the core.
The bad thing (trying to stick to the welfare subject) is that as much as many of you despise the welfare system, as much as you loathe paying taxes, we are stuck with it. Have any of you thought about the consequences of trying to simply abolish it overnight?
Tell you all what, we oughta set up another thread, and game it out.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
You could say the same about the Republican Party or any political party for that matter. It's only the idiotic and the ignorant that think the Republican Party is the party with the answers.
ack-ack
And you are absolutely correct.
But there is a reason for that kind of mentality.
Because its far easier to be mindless and support the team and let the team do your thinking for you then it is to actually think for yourself.
"Rah Rah, goo team" :rolleyes:
Lasersailer.
The thing about common sense is that of all the senses its the least common to actually be used
Particulary when your talking about political parties and elections
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, not really. The great thing about common sense is that it's a one way street.
You haven't a shread of common sense. You've proven this fact with your last two posts in this thread.
Republicans are just as corrupt as the Democrats. The two party system failed a long time ago. When you realize one day that neither party gives a damn about you or me, you'll be better informed and better off. Until then, you are just another sheep that pledges "allegiance" to a party that can careless about you.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Common Sense should point out the utter uselessness of supporting either the Dems' or the Republicans' anymore. They are both rotten and corrupt, to the core.
The bad thing (trying to stick to the welfare subject) is that as much as many of you despise the welfare system, as much as you loathe paying taxes, we are stuck with it. Have any of you thought about the consequences of trying to simply abolish it overnight?
Tell you all what, we oughta set up another thread, and game it out.
My wife laughed Saturday when I said I was "writing myself in". She laughed until she knew I was serious. I'm sick of both parties. I can careless "if I'm throwing my vote away". At least I know I'm more honest than the candidates ever were/will be.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, not really. The great thing about common sense is that it's a one way street.
So's a double standard (no standard at all), a blind eye, and a penchant for hypocrisy that one attempts to mask as such. ;)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, not really. The great thing about common sense is that it's a one way street.
And unfortunately, both parties are usually going the wrong way.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
My wife laughed Saturday when I said I was "writing myself in". She laughed until she knew I was serious. I'm sick of both parties. I can careless "if I'm throwing my vote away". At least I know I'm more honest than the candidates ever were/will be.
IMHO, there is no such thing as "Throwing your vote away." That term was coined by those who don't like the fact that people think differently than they do. ANY vote you cast, no matter who it's for, is your personal statement of what you think should be done, and who you think is right. Do I think that people that voted for Ross Perot wasted their' votes? Not one bit. I applaud them for it.
It's easy, in this country, for people to lean to either the DNC or the GOP in their' party affiliation; They don't really want sweeping change, even if it's for the better. They like sameness; It's less work for them. They don't want the upheaval and suffering that all of the necessary changes' will entail. Let's watch Arizona in the next few weeks, to see how much that state changes with the new law. That will give us an idea of what's in store. How much will the people there benefit? How much will they suffer? Time will tell. It's the "prototype" for the kind of sweeping reforms' that someone like Ron Paul would institute, So we might learn something. And we might vote differently than republican or democrat.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
IMHO, there is no such thing as "Throwing your vote away." That term was coined by those who don't like the fact that people think differently than they do. ANY vote you cast, no matter who it's for, is your personal statement of what you think should be done, and who you think is right. Do I think that people that voted for Ross Perot wasted their' votes? Not one bit. I applaud them for it.
It's easy, in this country, for people to lean to either the DNC or the GOP in their' party affiliation; They don't really want sweeping change, even if it's for the better. They like sameness; It's less work for them. They don't want the upheaval and suffering that all of the necessary changes' will entail. Let's watch Arizona in the next few weeks, to see how much that state changes with the new law. That will give us an idea of what's in store. How much will the people there benefit? How much will they suffer? Time will tell. It's the "prototype" for the kind of sweeping reforms' that someone like Ron Paul would institute, So we might learn something. And we might vote differently than republican or democrat.
Amen, bruthah! Anyone who treats voting like it's a "team sport" has already surrendered their brain either to the red herd or blue herd.
"Why is the nation such a mess? Cause, well, it's all their fault! Mbaaaaaah!"
:D
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Do I think that people that voted for Ross Perot wasted their' votes? Not one bit. I applaud them for it.
I voted for him both times. I'd vote for him again if he ran.
-
God willing, it this line of thinking will become a trend. One that will lead our nation back to being a better place.
-
Stephen Colbert 2008!
-
Majority should rule. 1 man should equal 1 vote.
-
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
-- Thomas Jefferson
-
So I take it that it is being suggested that the vote be taken away from people who don't vote conservative? Why not go the whole hog and abolish the Democrats and carry on with a one party state? :rofl
I'd like to see how long that would last!
The Welfare System that was already in place in Great Britain was looked at by Benjamin Franklin, who responded with an explanation as to why America did NOT have such a system but used what was known as "Poor Houses".
Britain had the work house, which is the welfare system, mentioned. Poor house, work house, same thing. Conditions were kept deliberately awful in order to discourage people from going there to seek help. Yet they were always full as the alternative was to starve. Which some people did rather than enter one.
People who hark back to the good old days really should do some research. Conditions were often hellish, life was brutal and short. Read a few Charles Dickens novels. It wasn't that much different in American cities either.
-
Voting in America is not a team sport so much as it is survival. You have to vote smart enough to keep the most evil candidate out.
cpxx.. history doesn't work in this case. No one in their right mind would raise kids in a city anymore and.. the populations are shrinking while less and less people can feed more and more. Rat infested breeding grounds of england in dickens time are not good examples of what would happen if welfare were aboilished...
A better example would be America in the 40's and 50's and even into the 60's. In fact... even in the 30's during the height of the depression it is difficult or impossible to find even one person of sound mind that starved to death.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Voting in America is not a team sport so much as it is survival. You have to vote smart enough to keep the most evil candidate out.
lazs
And the last time you voted democrat or outside the republican party was?
C'mon Laz.
You speak of how it should be.
Noth the way it has become.
If the most evil person alive were running for one party.
And the most honest and good person were running for the other.
Party members would still vote for their respective parties reguardless of whom belonged to what party
-
dred.. It has been a very long time since the least evil candidate I had a chance to vote for was a democrat. And.. the gap is widening.. it is indeed a blue and red country..
course.. some starry eyed lefty will come on now like arlo and say that the democrats aren't really trying to create a welfare state and take my guns away.
but.. that is how it is.. democrat means socialist.. that is all I see or get a chance to vote on here in kalifornia or for pres.
please explain to me how both democrat front runners are friends of the second and are against the welfare state.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Common Sense should point out the utter uselessness of supporting either the Dems' or the Republicans' anymore. They are both rotten and corrupt, to the core.
Very well said!:aok
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Poor house, work house, same thing.........Yet they were always full as the alternative was to starve.
yup
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dred.. It has been a very long time since the least evil candidate I had a chance to vote for was a democrat. And.. the gap is widening.. it is indeed a blue and red country..
course.. some starry eyed lefty will come on now like arlo and say that the democrats aren't really trying to create a welfare state and take my guns away.
but.. that is how it is.. democrat means socialist.. that is all I see or get a chance to vote on here in kalifornia or for pres.
please explain to me how both democrat front runners are friends of the second and are against the welfare state.
lazs
Lasz, I honestly have to ask this question: What are your gaurentees, that a Republican won't do the same thing?
We've had Arnold (a republican) in office here in CA now for a coupla' years. Has he abolished any of Cali's gun control laws? Has he done anything to keep you from paying more taxes' to feed the welfare machine?
Last I looked, Mag's over 10 rnds. are still abolished. You can't have a flash hider on your rifle. Arnold's had time to sit on Feinstein and Boxer, but he's just sitting there marking time. And he was the great white GOP hope.
The GOP's following there own agenda, and unfortunately, It doesn't include me and you. If the Democrat's have a saving grace, at least they are open about what they want to do. It makes it easier to steer clear of them.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch."
-Benjamin Franklin
(paraphrased since I'm too lazy to look it up)
-
To those of you who said that both the Dems and Republicans have their own agenda I cannot agree with you more. They both are still working on laws to give Illegal Immigrants massive welfare assistance despite being told that is not what the american people want.
Personally I think they believe they are kings instead of representatives.
-
frode... I have to simply say that as a republican...
Arnie was the best commie liberal democrat in the race. I knew he stunk but he was, and is.. way better than the only other guy that was running in the race.
There has been talk of "common sense" on this board about not voting for either party.. this seems a contradiction.
If one party is very evil and the other is just slightly evil and a third is great but... no chance of winning... if you vote for the party that has no chance of winning and this allows the "very evil" guy to win out over the slightly evil one...
How much frigging common sense is that?
more talk about... good democrats vs bad republicans.... Oh? not in my state or in the pres elections which... is all I get to vote on.
Now, I know that there are some democrats with better tax or individual freedom or gun rights stances than some republicans but besides being as rare as hens teeth... I don't ever get a chance to vote for em and.... there is no "guarentee" that the so called "good democrat" will not revert to party line on a party vote issue... happens all the time.
lazs
-
Origanally posted by Lasz2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been talk of "common sense" on this board about not voting for either party.. this seems a contradiction.
If one party is very evil and the other is just slightly evil and a third is great but... no chance of winning... if you vote for the party that has no chance of winning and this allows the "very evil" guy to win out over the slightly evil one...
How much frigging common sense is that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I normally would'nt be so abrupt, but...That kind of thinking isn't common sense. It's defeatism. It's accepting the status quo. It's the kind of thinking that's damn near ruined the U.S., already. It's the kind of thinking that perpetuates' all of the problems' that we ***** about on these BBS. We don't have many oppurtunities' to affect that outcome. But during election time, is when we need to act.
I agree with you on Arnold, except that I would add that during the Recall election, He came out like the other Repubs. I guess being an actor made that easy. Because He's as soft on issues like immigration and gun rights' as Feinstein and Boxer.
I'd like to add, that he was kind of a shoe-in, anyway. Gray Davis had literally burned every bridge, and Not enough of the Chicano's got out to vote for Cruz Bustamante. Hell, not even all of the regular Democrats' wanted Bustamante, because they thought that he would not only perpetuate the problems' we had with Davis, but that he would just make it even worse.
-
frode.. not sure I understand your point... common sense is not defeatism or lack of defeatism.
By your example.. the person who will not jump off a 20 story building for fear of being hurt is a defeatist.
Now.. I will concede.. if the third party in the example had any chance of winning... it would be defeatism to not vote for him. That is not the case however. third parties (in this country in recent history) are sucker bets up till today. I can't speak for the future.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
frode.. not sure I understand your point... common sense is not defeatism or lack of defeatism.
By your example.. the person who will not jump off a 20 story building for fear of being hurt is a defeatist.
Now.. I will concede.. if the third party in the example had any chance of winning... it would be defeatism to not vote for him. That is not the case however. third parties (in this country in recent history) are sucker bets up till today. I can't speak for the future.
lazs
He doesn't get that chance to win, by everyone assuming he won't, and just voting for the frontrunner, even if the frontrunner's actually the next Adolph Hitler...But happens' to belong to your favorite party.
Common Sense isn't knowing that the best guy for the job is there, but voting for a snake instead, because your afraid of someone you don't like from another party winning. That's how the snake wins.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Origanally posted by Lasz2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been talk of "common sense" on this board about not voting for either party.. this seems a contradiction.
If one party is very evil and the other is just slightly evil and a third is great but... no chance of winning... if you vote for the party that has no chance of winning and this allows the "very evil" guy to win out over the slightly evil one...
How much frigging common sense is that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I normally would'nt be so abrupt, but...That kind of thinking isn't common sense. It's defeatism. It's accepting the status quo. It's the kind of thinking that's damn near ruined the U.S., already. It's the kind of thinking that perpetuates' all of the problems' that we ***** about on these BBS. We don't have many oppurtunities' to affect that outcome. But during election time, is when we need to act.
I agree with you on Arnold, except that I would add that during the Recall election, He came out like the other Repubs. I guess being an actor made that easy. Because He's as soft on issues like immigration and gun rights' as Feinstein and Boxer.
I'd like to add, that he was kind of a shoe-in, anyway. Gray Davis had literally burned every bridge, and Not enough of the Chicano's got out to vote for Cruz Bustamante. Hell, not even all of the regular Democrats' wanted Bustamante, because they thought that he would not only perpetuate the problems' we had with Davis, but that he would just make it even worse.
LOL..friend. Laz is already defeated. He's the one in the cabin up on the hill, the one with the bunker and 50 guns.... He's been defeated for more years than he can count.
It all started, for him, when women were "given" the right to vote.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
LOL..friend. Laz is already defeated. He's the one in the cabin up on the hill, the one with the bunker and 50 guns.... He's been defeated for more years than he can count.
It all started, for him, when women were "given" the right to vote.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with lasz, since really, this election( And the next CA. Gubanatorial, as well) Could affect us drastically. With the narrow margins' that the last two or three elections' have been decided by, even one vote, even if you think it's wasted, could make the difference.
Besides...When a DNC or GOP candidate ****s over the people by running to wherever the money is (and they do, without fail) Then at least you can honestly claim that they don't represent your beliefs; You voted your way, honestly, and not for the SOB that has exactly the same intentions' as the one in the other large party, only he has a different party pin on his lapel.
-
moray.. my fight is over. I leave it to the young guys of whom I certainly hope you are not an example.
I can indeed retire to a more sedate and out of the way place and live out my life as more of an individual no matter how bad you socialists screw the pooch.
I will kick back and wait to die while you are picking over each others bones.
how is that for "common sense"?
I don't care what women think except the ones in my life. I get along fine with them. I don't need to put up with the ones who don't know who they are.
At this rate.. their won't be a white woman.. or American woman for that matter.. that can buy a husband in the next few decades. who would want em?
Ones who claim to like em end up childless and divorced.
lazs
-
Laz said
"moray.. my fight is over. I leave it to the young guys of whom I certainly hope you are not an example."
Actually I think that is what was wanted. That is what was waited for.
I'm too old to do much either.
But!
Maybe too old is good.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Do I think that people that voted for Ross Perot wasted their' votes? Not one bit. I applaud them for it.
IMO they are the ones to blame as they allowed slick to get voted in 92 which put us in the position we are in today ... I guess some can say that their vote wasn't wasted ... not me.
It has always been about the lesser of two evils. As I pay enough taxes to our wasteful fat gov, I'll pick the elephant over the jackarse everytime.