Answers inline Larry Lyons wrote: > Or sex, or religion, or religious belief, or political ideology. What I am > saying is that if there is a way to legitimately discriminate it will be > used. There are power groups in this nation that do want to ensure that > others are "kept down" and suppressed. If there is a way there will be those > who try and keep those they feel are inferior or different from voting or > serving the nation.
Political ideology has always been used as a test since the founding of this nation. See the alien and sedition acts, some of which are still in force, if not enforced, today. > You mean if you disagree with someone's politics they should not be permitted > to vote? You know that that the communists in eastern europe and asia have a > long history of doing that. Closer to home the same has happened to blacks, > asians, women, a wide variety of ethnic groups and religions. I thought this > nation was better than that. Nope, not what I mean at all. I just thing you should only have the vote if you come to it through one of the methods I mentioned earlier. > In the past if you were jewish, mormon, catholic, 7th day adventist, muslim, > sikh or other religious group you were not allowed to vote. Currently if you > are a professed atheist you legally cannot vote in around 7 or 8 states. If > you profess certain political beliefs you cannot vote in several states as > well. I don't know about this and would like to read about it. Obviously any religious test would be unconstitutional. What political ideologies aren't allowed to vote? > In other words its not being colour blind only. What you are also advocating > is suppressing the vote of entire groups of people based on their beliefs. > That's straight out of Karl Rove's playbook. Where did I say we should suppress citizens based on their beliefs? I said we should prevent immigration based on beliefs there is a difference. > forget McCain and Schwarzenegger for a minute. What about someone who grew up > in Guatemala and served in the military before becoming a citizen. Are you > suggesting that he would make a worse president than someone who grew up in > the backwoods somewhere in Alabama with a family tree that was a straight > trunk and who dropped out of school after failing grade 1 for the 10th time? > Just because of an accident of birth? No I'm not. I'm saying neither of them should be president. Neither should I. However only one of them would be prevented from running by the constitution. > Yep them injuns and other minoritys are getting too uppity these days asking > for equal right now? > > Pardon the sarcasm but that's what you're sounding like now. Thats not what I meant and you know it. I was talking about how we've gone too far into having a large powerful central government. I don't think race should play any part in government, period. > Yes Nafta and globalization, if you look beyond the propaganda, the US has > done considerably better by it than before. There's a hell of a lot more jobs > gained, according to the Conference Board than have been lost. But hey facts > never should stand in the way of ideology now should they. The conference board? Because it's not in their interest to say that? I'm sure the former auto workers in Detroit would love to hear about that. > Yes fair trade, then why haven't you complained about the way your government > has not been playing fair with the agreements. For instance the US has been > violating its own laws by imposing illegal tariffs on imported lumber, > according to the Department of Commerce, US courts, the NAFTA Chapter 19 > panel for adjudicating trade disputes, and the WTC. In each case the US lost > the case that with its own governmental experts stating that the tariffs are > illegal. Some fair trade indeed. Note I said free not fair trade, I specifically made that distinction. Many of the supposed violations you're speaking of come from the fair trade side of the aisle. > And the most hated in the end. So in other words you prefer the jackboot to > soft forces. No wonder the US is seen as the greatest threat to most of the > world according to international surveys, and that's among its staunchest > allies and other nations (ie., Australia, Britain, Canada, most of Europe, > practically all of latin America and a lot of Asia). With that approach when > the US really runs into trouble no one will help. The U.S. is always basically alone. Time and again we've seen this in our history. > There's a reason for those rules, and that is so that your own people don't > get treated like that I suppose that the next time that the US is in a real > land war with a nation that can fully stand up to it, its OK for American > soldiers to be tortured and mistreated then. The rules don't work. The Germans and Japanese violated them, and obviously the hadj violates them all the time. The N Koreans and Chinese did it, the Vietnamese did it, the Russians have done it. It's already OK to do it to us. > Yes and by that rule it would be OK for any petty local dictatorships to do > what they will and the feds be damned. There was a reason why Eisenhower (a > very good general and a republican president btw) sent in Federal troops into > Little Rock Arkansas during his tenure. Under your approach that could not > have been done and a far worse sore on the nation would have developed. But > hey why not its limited Federal government. I thought that was one of the > issues that the Civil War was fought over, the supremacy of the Federal > government. Wrong, the troops needed to go into Arkansas, again that was race related, and the government AT ALL LEVELS should be color blind, we have a constitutional amendment in place and in power. > Starting with persinckity things like civil rights no doubt. If I remember > correctly it was the county Sheriffs who were the ones who were among the > most active in suppressing the civil rights of black citizens in the south. > Remember what happened on Bloody Sunday in Selma Alabama? Wrong, civil rights should be the first thing protected by government. You are of course correct about the 60s, and there is a need for federal oversight, just not at the level that we have now. > Yeppers its much more entertaining watching the poor, sick and old die in the > streets. And legless beggers are always good for street theater. And hey > what's wrong with an industrial plant discharging vaporized lead into the > air, directly into what few schools there are under your fantasy. Let the > rich get richer and everyone else get poorer and poorer. yes lets even > sacrifice the weak on your ideological altar. Hahah, no lead allowed in the air in my world, thats a commerce issue and could be legislated. However when it comes to the poor sick and homeless, well, some people are winners and some are losers. Thats life. you make your own fate. When my home started to go through foreclosure I didn't ask for a hand out, or expect the government to step in and save it for me. I've sucked it the fuck up. My problems, my bills, they are just that, mine. > Yep keep them ignorant, that way they cannot realize what few rights they do > have. Unfortunately the other nations will definitely overtake this country. > Why not lets have India or China own the US. > > Sarcasm aside, if it were not for federal involvement in education things > would be far worse. Look at the those states that are at the bottom of the > educational achievement rankings, they all have the same attitude. Minimal > investment in education. Again Eisenhower was right on this one - education > is a national security issue. It's funny to me that the locally run one school house was able to produce some of the best students in the world, while our new and improved system continuously falls in the international rankings. If we need the big government in education so bad why to home school students continue to test higher than those from our public institutions? In the end it comes to this. Not everyone needs a college degree, or even a high school diploma. I have neither, and I've done pretty damned well. What no one wants to admit is there are and always be those at the top of the economic scale, and those at the bottom. These days personal choice has more to do with were you are than anything else. The country needs ditch diggers, and laborers. If we did away with the foolish notion of the minimum wage and social security we would actually have Americans working those jobs. > Funny given your standards, I would have thought countries like Somalia, > Congo, etc would be closer to your ideal, they mostly have no real national > government. No educational suoport, no medicare, medicaid, no drug war, no > national standards etc. Limited government != anarchy, and you know it. You're very well educated, more so than I am. You know what a classical liberal is, you know what an anarchist is. I don't believe in no law, just limited. I still believe in checks and balances, some federal oversight, I just want to see it pushed down to state and local level. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:259765 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
