That Bitch Condi Faces Some Truths

No. A person fails society. When a person doesn't look towards helping the down-trodden he/she has failed society and the beauty that society should bring.

And you should accept responsability for people not being literate. So should everyone.

Nonsense. Everyone has to look out for themself. Helping hands are great, but nobody has any business counting on them. My taxes pay for 13 years of schooling for every child in my area. My taxes fund a nice library. I've done my part. At some point, they have to take what's been given and make it their own... It's not my responsibility to protect them from themself.



No, I shouldn't. "Guilt of the haves" is not a mindset I subscribe to - Because I did not fail in no way means I shoulder the guilt of those that did. It's their own guilt to bear, uncomfortable as it may be.

It's not a promise OF happiness.

did I say it was?

I didn't think i was that uncool.

Pffft. You are teh root of all evil!

You are allowed to *persue* happieness. That's what I was getting at.

aww thats the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day

<.<

achiving happyness is absolutely forbiden but you may strive for it.

and my point was not everyone IS able to pursue happiness.

your turn.

what about my turn?

Isn't it obvious that someone will always be unable to pursue thier own happiness? In most cultures, liking to kill people and pursuing that is... illegal.

Sure they are. They just may not succeed. Thats different. You can try to PURSUE happieness in the most oppressive, tyranical society imaginable, it just doesn't speak well to how likely you are to succeed.

Electrical knowledge is essential to a safe wiring job like political knowledge is essential to good government.

This reminded me of something that I heard on the radio a couple of weeks ago. A study was done to see how many people could tell you what freedoms we are guaranteed compared to how many people could tell you the names of everyone in the Simpsons.

More people could name all the Simpsons. Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition the Government being the two least remembered.

Isn't it reasonable that to vote you should have some basic knowledge of our political system before you get to make changes to it?

Since you ignored it before, I'll ask it again: Can you give me an example from history of someone who took someone's voting rights away for a reason other than keeping themselves in power? Or do you always "win" arguments by ignoring what the person says and responding to things that you'd wish they'd said?

You're right, it's wrong of me to support freedom, liberty, democracy, and human rights.


They'd be missing out on freedom, democracy. But they'd be getting tyranny and despotism really quick, I promise you that.


If you want to limit voting rights you don't really undestand democracy. Just because someone doesn't arrive to conclusions the same way you do doesn't mean it's random - that's not only elitist, that's incredibly arrogant and self-centered.


Well, that's incredibly ill-informed. You might want to actually look at the world outside yourself once in a while


Well, I think the dictionary definition matching you exactly is argument enough. But then, I use logic and facts in my arguments.


Well, try being desperately poor for a few years and get back to me on those attitudes.


How about we don't let people vote who want to restrict the rights of others? I think that'd be a good system, and it makes as much sense as your idea.

"A democrat need not believe that the majority will always reach a wise decision. He should however believe in the necessity of accepting the decision of the majority, be it wise or unwise, until such a time that the majority reaches another decision." -- Bertrand Russell

You don't get out much.

I dislike deliberately obtuse sophmoric questions.

I ignored it because it's not relevent. What other people have done in the past is irrelevent - thats the whole purpose of the word "change" and "progress".



They don't have democracy currently. They have an obtuse llFrand() array.



Nowhere did I say "arrive at conclusions the same way I do" as a definition for something not being random. But, please, keep imagining I say things I don't. You are causing much more work for arguing your position that I am.

Besides, one can perfectly well understand democracy and not *like* democracy. Democracy is design by a committee.



No, I'm being a realist. With as easy as education is to obtain in todays society, if one cares to get it, one can.



Actually, dictionary definitions aren't an arguement ender.



My father grew up, as you say, 'desperatly poor'. He did more than alright for himself. However, given that being poor has nothing to do with my arguement, I'm again calling red herring.



Sure. Feel free to lobby for it. Enjoy not being able to vote.



Yeah, that's the problem I'm trying to adress. I don't think wanton self destruction is a virtue we should strive for, personally.

By which you mean, I give people the credit of free choice.

Because it shows that the "Freedom" thingy is simply and advertisment sticker on a product wich doesent delivers what it advertises?
The US claims to be the "land of freedom", but at the same a lot of states allow you to shoot people and get shoot at (as soldier) before you are allowed to drink a bottle of beer.
So they save you from the hazards of alcohol but consider you mature enough to make the decision to join the armee, handle machinery wich is designed to kill, but not mature enough to decide to drink alcohol or not.
Thats only one example how much this "Freedom" thingy is a pure utopia.
Beside that every societie needs rules and restrictions to function, you can attempt to give as much freedom as possible and still have a working societie, but it will be always bought by lesser functionality.
Total order is the highest possible functionality, total chaos allows highest freedom, youll have to find the middle.
There are quite a lot of countries you enjoy the same freedom, a little more or less in some areas as the US offers, but they dont see it necessary to advertise it.

Since you ignored it before, I'll ask it again: Can you give me an example from history of someone who took someone's voting rights away for a reason other than keeping themselves in power?


Is there any part of the world outside you that's relevant?


If "making sense of" and "digging the truth from" are "imagining" then yes, you're right there.


OK, if you don't like democracy that's fine with me. But I don't think tyrannies are much fun unless you're the one in charge.


Fine, whatever. Does anything that disagrees with you qualify?


Umm, better go reread what I wrote and actually respond to that. But I'm not the one lobbying to get rid of my own voting rights......

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

I didn't ignore it, I dismissed it. There's a difference. Go back and re-read my response please.



A lot of them, actually. If there werent, I wouldn't care.



Let me know when you find some truth, ok?



Well that's sorta the whole point, isn't it?

As far as my stance on democracy, there's a famous quote that I'm going to echo here, although putting my own spin on it...

Democracy, particularly in it's current incarnation, at this level of societal evolution, is flawed as all get out. It's a terrible system of government. It just so happens that all other systems are far, far worse, so for the moment, I'm all for democracy.



Tons of things. Nothing you have tried yet, however.



Nope. I'm all for your right to decide how elections should work. Now, your system would forbid both you and I from voting, but hey... You're free to think that's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.



I don't believe intellect, social status, or financial resources should limit right to vote either, within reason on the former... Obviously I don't think a person who isn't even able to comprehend a world past tommorow or outside of his padded cell should be able to vote, there are some restrictions of course.

But, again...



It's so easily done, apparently, since you have not once actually attacked my true position, instead spending all your time attacking some imaginary view you *think* I hold.

exactly

Yeah, but "Land of the slightly opressed" doesn't look as good in brochures.

Heh... You paraphrased my opinion. Democracy as the lesser of available evils. Better government won't happen until we have better humans and a sane society. In other words, not anytime soon.

Since you ignored it before, I'll ask it again: Can you give me an example from history of someone who took someone's voting rights away for a reason other than keeping themselves in power?


Haven't seen any evidence of that thus far. You think every reasonable point I make is irrelevant, I can only assume you feel that way about the rest of the world outside yourself. Plus, you seem to care not at all about the people who wouldn't be able to pass your silly little test.


Let me know when you find a worldview other than your own.


What? That you don't like democracy?


Yet again, I am not in favor of taking anyone's rights away, I'm in favor of preserving them. If you actually read what I wrote that would have been easier to deduce. You have a remarkable ability to respond to what you wrote as though I wrote it.


Since I have actually responded to your true position with every single post, I can only assume that means you have some hidden agenda here. Based on history and logic, I'd assume your hidden agenda is to ensure your views are enacted regardless of democracy, human rights, or just common decency.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy

I didn't ignore it. I dismissed it. Learn the difference, please. There really is one. I promise.



Do you even know what my silly little test is? How many people do you think wouldn't be able to pass it?



Found tons. Why should I embrace them?




Given the options, I love democracy.



I read what you wrote.



I don't think you even know what my position is, since I've seen no evidence that you are willing to answer it, despite me being quite clear about it in every post I've made to you thus far, except maybe for the one with the picture of the Artful Dodger. You assume much, and base little on what I've actually said, and that's been the problem from your first post in this thread.



I'm all for both types of revolution. But you really don't want to hold up Kennedy as a wise man around me.