That Bitch Condi Faces Some Truths

The U.S. does not allow convicted felons to vote. Just for argument's sake... If serving your jail time satisfies your debt to society, shouldn't you be allowed to vote? Isn't that a life-long punishment?

Do the felony convictions unevenly handed out on drug convictions, e.g. harsh penalties for crack cocaine (a "black crime" as opposed to lighter penalties for regular cocaine (a "white crime" affect our voting processes?

And you mentioned mental incapacity (or challenge, sorry too tired to scroll up). What type? I doubt anyone would argue that someone with severe depression is incapable of exercising their francise. But what about schitzophrenics who, for whatever reason, refuse medication and exhibit symptoms such as hearing voices?

I agree - that was a disgusting comment, and one I never expected to see in these forums.

So not being Republican is now unpatriotic, is it?

Mm - thinking about it, I suppose it is, now.

Yes. I disagree with limiting the rights of felons to vote. But you're slightly wrong - the U.S. does not implement that policy, simply a majority of the states in the nation.


Nope. I don't see any reason to limit anyone's right to vote for any reason whatsoever.

And even though it's the current policy, and one that I was pointing out some of the reasonable thoughts behind above, I personally see no reason to limit voting on the basis of age. Given the participation rights of 18-30 year olds, I don't think the polls would be deluged with a wave of 10-year-olds voting.

"I swear to the Lord
I still can't see
Why Democracy means
Everybody but me."
-- Langston Hughes

The problem with any system like this is that someone has to make the judgement call on the degree of your involvement.

I don't even need to argue my point anymore. Thanks, Toni...



Until you can get past that logical flaw, we can't have a discussion. We're not communicating on the same plane.

Just because I'm an ornery cuss, however...



Good question! Should a person with the mind of a child be able to vote? After all, you think it's perfectly fair a REAL child can't vote...

A person with a level of mental impairment that still allowed them to live some semblance of a 'normal' life would not be hampered by my system.



Because of something I said earlier: The ability to think does not mean one does think. It only takes ability to think, or determination, to get a PHD. It doesn't indicate you do think.

The problem, Toni, is that you don't have a clue what my point is, or if you do, you so desperatly want to disagree with me that you ignore it.Time and again you have ignored (and returned to) the fact that I I've proposed a slew of ways people could still vote without being literate, or even particularly inteligent. My only requirement is that they are informed. But you don't seem to catch the very real distinction there.

My point is very simple, and when opposed, it almost inevitably boils down to one of two arguements:

All people have an inherent right to vote, and any restricting of that is a Mortal Sin. The problem here is, you accept that we don't let children vote, even if they are perfectly able to vote reasonably... And, we already restrict based on other things... being a felon, for example. Or, hell, citizenship. Why should only citizens get to vote? Who gets elected to president of any nation effects other nations too.

The other arguement is that it's mean/racist/elitist/descriminatory, and since those things are Un Fair, we can't do it. Well, so what? It's NOT racist, no matter how hard you try to bail out that sinking ship. It's NOT sexist. It doesn't give a flying f- about race, creed, religion, who you screw, which hand you favor, who your parents were, if you do recreational blow, or anything else. It only matters that you know what you are doing. You could say that is 'elitist', but if you honestly believe that, you are either self-defeating, because the elite by definition is a small group, or ungodly elitist yourself to think you need to watch over and shepard all the poor "non elitist" masses.

You want to place the racism card though? Fine. I can dance to that tune if you like. If you think my plan is racist, it says far more about /your/ beliefs than mine. I think all races are equaly capable.

I suggested a *very* leanient one: Be able to describe three stances who you are voting for takes. That's the most basic of the basic. Sadly, I have a sneaking suspision that "what is the full name of your canidate" would weed out at least a tiny percentage of the voting populous.

I'd like to respond further, but I only scored a B- on the test, so my freedom of speech has been suspended. Hold on, the Thought Police are coming.....

It's hard to be a moderate. I was trying to think of a single issue where I favor the far left or the far right. Can't think of one.

I think people should be able to own guns, but not assault weapons.
I am pro-choice, but think 3rd trimester abortions should be restricted to health of Mom.
I believe in freedom of religion, especially my freedom to not be religious, but I think no one should be able to come to my door peddling Jesus (or whomever).

Same on voting. Do I want convicted felons voting? Not if they are repeaters. And not if convicted for certain crimes. Do I want children voting? I'd rather have an informed 16 year old voting than some adults. Mental issues? Can the person function, then yes. Do they have paranoid delusions, then no.

I understand the fear that if you put any restrictions on anything, then ultimately that thing will be nibbled out of existance. But we restrict lots of things for the safety or health of the public.

It's difficult to legislate shades of grey. And it's so much easier to be radical and see things as absolutes.

That doesn't seem too moderate to me. How, again, are your freedoms curtailed by having to ignore them? By the vast energy it takes to stand up, open the door, and slam it shut?

I think I love you, Surreal. Join me, we can rule the world as fascist tyrants together.

They should stay off my damn property.

My property.

I guess apartment dwellers are sorta out of luck on that one, though.

I passed my freedom of speech and freedom of assembly tests! Now I'm studying for my "right to petition the government for a redress of grievances" test, I hear that's a toughy.

It's hard to argue with someone who responds to things I don't write, but I'll continue to try, just as soon as I pass my Bill of Rights tests. Hang in there!

If we can have No Soliciting Laws and Do Not Call Laws, then I can have Leave me the Hell Alone, I'm not interested in your god laws too. I dislike intrusive salespeople regardless of their product

Extreme stance would be me greeting them with a shotgun.

Also Toni,

I've tried to answer you in a thoughtful manner. As your tone degenerates, my attention span for you does also.

How, pray tell, did my tone degenerate? You did get that I was kidding around with the response to that, right? Hence the sarcastic smiley face?
I'd hate to upset you, Surreal, you seem pretty intelligent and willing to read what others actually write. If my response to your post annoyed you I'm sorry.
Now if you'll excuse me I have a freedom of the press test to take, then I'll have almost gotten my First Amendment rights back.

Umm, okay?


That's not really a logical flaw. Call me crazy, I tend to believe that anyone who wants to limit the right to vote is doing so because they want their side in power. That's historically been the case. Can you give me an example of someone who's limited voting rights out of the goodness of their heart?


What about people who aren't elitist? Would they be hampered by your system?


There is no distinction. Limiting the right to vote, for whatever reason, is wrong. There is never a good time to take someone's rights away, unless you're elitist, then there's always a good time.


How about a third argument: I support democracy. Simple enough for you?


But not all education levels, OK, I get it, you're just an elitist, not a rascist. Fine, whatever.

From the dictionary:
Elitism:
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

As President Johnson once said, "There can no longer be anyone too poor to vote." Under your system that would no longer be true. You would punish people for society falling them, and that's not fair.

"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost."
-- Aristotle

Sorry, missed the smiley. Don't forget to get the genetic test done too.

I still don't think wanting a level in competence and responsibilty in people who exercise power which affects me (the francise) makes me an elitest anymore than wanting an electrician to be licensed and tested does.

Because voting is a necessary element to a democratic society, and electrical knowledge isn't?

I don't have to call you crazy. We already have a perfectly good word for what you are: Wrong.



Considering I just said some mentally handicapped people could vote, something tells me this was just to try jab me.



Why is it always a bad thing? Explain, in the context of my arguement, how anyone that my system would deny the right to vote would be missing out on anything?



I love democracy, if a fascist tyrany with me in power isn't feasable. But I love a democracy of informed voters, so that the country is actually governed in a manner consistant with the will of the people. You, apparently, want a government that is governed randomly.



Education in this country is free from K-12. Even in the worst schools, basic education is availible to those who care to seek it out, even if the teachers don't give a damn and the books are fifty years old. History is full of people who had far less oportunity than that who still managed to educate themselves. There is no excuse for poor education except poor base material - to be truely illiterate and uneducated in this society, you have to simply not care.

But in any event, I have said like five times now that literacy wouldn't be required in my system, as much as I think it should. So your education arguement falls very very flat.

What's your next charge you're going to use to prove I'm 'elitist'?




I don't buy the arguement that society fails someone. A person fails themself. Society is full of people who pull themselves up by their teeth from fantasticly horrible conditions. If you aren't willing to do that, fine, but nobody ever promised you life would be fair.

Yes, in that sense, I am 'elitist'. I think people who care are better than people who don't care. I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable with the governing of our nation being decided by people who don't even care enough to better *themselves*.

Nevertheless, as I said, I throw out literacy. So, really, next card please, ok? You're arguing an arguement that doesn't exist.



Now explain why that quote is true. Or were you raised by bumper stickers?

Society is also full of people that, despite their best efforts, get buried. So your point seems one-sided. Society doesn't always fail someone --but it can and does far more often then you seem willing to admit.

Society doesn't fail anyone because it doesn't promise anything. Nothing is gauranteed. Life is what you make it and you get from it as much as you are willing to work for.

-Kiamat Dusk

Nope. I said, life isn't fair. I maintain, however, that society never fails a person. A person fails a person. Society just helps the process along a bit, if the person isn't willing to fight hard enough. I'm not saying society is going to let everyone be the next bill gates, or even middle class. But truely fail? No. For the record, in context, we are talking about the ability to be literate. No, I will not accept that society is responsible for people not being literate. That's a personal failing, in modern US society.

Ridiculous, and dedicedly unamerican at any rate.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --sadly not all of us are allowed this.

And for non-americans? Same thing. Society does hold out the promise of a life well-lived amongst other members of our society.

When people stop looking out for the least amongst us, then Society fails. I'm often amazed at how many followers of Christ ignore his most important message.