That Bitch Condi Faces Some Truths

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?



I don't care what your test is. Any test for voting rights is silly, and by little I meant small - as in small-minded.


What, as long as it works perfectly and people never make mistakes?


Read it again, and try replying to what's actually there. I'm not in favor of taking anyone's rights away, you are. I described a system whereby people who are in favor taking people's rights away shouldn't be allowed to vote, which would leave you out in the cold.


I know exactly what your position is. It's that some people are better than others because they can pass a silly little essay test.
I assume nothing. Again you're confusing what I do with what you do. I've answered every post you've written directly and honestly. Any time I've pointed out a logical fallacy in your silly little plan, you've either a) ignored it, b) claimed it wasn't relevant, or c) responded as though I wrote something entirely different.

"Life in freedom is not easy, and democracy is not perfect." -- John F. Kennedy

I answered your question. Simply not how you wanted it answered. It needs, and will never recieve, another answer.



Thank you for (almost) admitting you don't know what I'm talking about.



Focus on, "Given the options".



Which is exactly what I responded to. I fully support your right to want this system. And in a fun little bit of MAD, it would axe you too. If you feel that passionatly, go for it.




Thank you for FULLY admitting now that you don't have any clue what my position is.



I've ignored nothing you wrote to my knowledge. Much of what you've wrote hasn't been relevent, that's not my fault. And I've never responded to anything you didn't write - I just often respond to the conclusion of what you write only a germ of.



He was right about that. My system wouldn't be perfect either, but better? Yeah, I think so. You're free to disagree, of course.

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?

Nope, you didn't answer it. "I won't answer that" isn't an answer. I'll just keep posting it though, don't you worry.


That sentence bears no relation whatsoever to what I actually wrote, but OK.




Umm, no it wouldn't, nice try at mindreading though. I actually support human rights, and don't want any of them taken away. You do. How many times do I have to write that before you understand that?


I guess it is much easier to win an argument if you respond to made-up stuff than what people actually wrote. At least you seem to have abandoned ascribing your beliefs to me and then refuting them.


Awful convenient how so many points of mine aren't relevant. Is any criticism of you relevant? Wait, you won't answer that, it's not relevant.


Though I might not be, under your system.

"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." -- John F. Kennedy

Your system would introduce vastly greater conformity.

Hey, if you want to waste your time, be my guest. It's not a relevent question, though, so I don't see how it warrents an answer.




Depends which lines you read between.



Anyone who proposed that law would be effected by it.




You would know all about winning a made up arguement.



Some. None you have put forth, however.



Factually wrong, once again.



Actually, it would do away with conformity to a large extent, I feel.

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?


It's a totally relevant question. If you don't understand that historical actions are relevant to present policy, I don't think you could pass your own test.


No reading between the lines at all, unless it's on your part, and by "reading between the lines" you mean "making stuff up."


That's a silly sentence, all arguments are made up.


I've criticized it as taking away people's rights. Are you saying it doesn't? Explain how that's not the case, again? Explain how you support democracy, but not voting rights? I keep laughing each time. Your next post I'm going to try reading while I drink milk, and see if I can get it to come up my nose.


Nope. The problem with enacting your crazy policy is that it would probably lead to even crazier, and more restrictive, policies. Everyone's freedoms are more secure when everyone is allowed to participate. If only a limited segment of society is allowed to vote, pretty soon only a limited segment of society will be allowed to have other freedoms. And that way leads to tyranny. But I'm sure you'll say that's irrelevant or ignore it.


OK, so limiting the voting pool to a certain type of person would do away with conformity? That's pretty magical thinking. When you walk outside in the rain, do you get more dry?

Another concern about your system would be recounts. I've been involved with a number, and they already take an extraordinarily lengthy amount of time. If we had to re-grade 15,000 essays it would take ten times as long.

Another concern is anonymity. Vote-counting should be an anonymous process, or people can be intimidated into voting a certain way. Your system would strip away the anonymity, since there would be both handwriting and style samples for people to analyze.

Another concern is that there would be no possible way to get a panel of judges to grade the essays in every small town in a nation.

Another concern is that it's undemocratic to take away the franchise from those who already have it.

By your logic, we would still be living in caves and eating raw meat. History does not *dictate* the future, it hints at it.



Nope.




However, you have made up your opponent as well here.



Nobody would inherently loose the ability to vote.



The second ammendment would like a word with you.



But it wouldn't be a limited segment of society allowed to vote. That's the point you Dont. Seem. To. Get.



See above. I'm not limiting the voting pool to one TYPE of person. Me and kendra would both be voting in my system, do you think conformity would ever come of that pairing?



Oh, hey, I never said my idea was WORKABLE. What part of "pipe dream" didn't you understand? A lot of ideas are great but not WORKABLE.



But they don't use it, is my contention. Anyone who is actually making use of the voting system to govern the future of our society would be able to continue to do so. I want to get rid of the llFrand() arrays is all.

How is asking a question about history advocating the utterly insane idea that history does not advance? Do you even know what logic is? Do you truly believe that what was done in the past would has no bearing whatsoever on the present? In that case, why do anything?


Yup


No, you have, I didn't think I had one. I was merely refuting a terrible idea with logic.


At least, not as long as it was tight enough.


Yeah, democracy would like a word with you


Yes, I do get it, and yes, it would be.


Actually, you wouldn't be voting in your system, at least not if I did the grading.


So you finally admit your idea is terrible. God, that took a long time.

Nope, I'm sorry, great ideas are workable, they may just take a long time to get working. Your idea, on the other hand, would never work on any scale.

I should ask you about knowing what logic is. If what was done in the past dictated what happens in the future, THEN there is no reason to try anything, because we would already know what would happen.



As you will.



Who are you argueing with then?




Rephrase please?



My views on democracy are, I believe, on record. It's not a holy topic that can't be discussed, last I checked.



Then you give society far less credit than I do.



Sure I would. More evidence you don't understand my system.



If in your world "great" and "terrible" are synonyms, I guess.

I just asked a question, I don't know what you're going on about. You used the word dictate, not me.


You're on record against it, last time I checked.


I didn't write that it would be a small segment of society, I said it would be limited. Nice attempt at mindreading, though, and nice attempt to confuse and obfuscate what I wrote.


I do understand your system, and no, you wouldn't. I don't know why you want to take away your own voting rights.


No, they're not. Great ideas are workable, even if it takes a long time. Yours isn't, hasn't ever been, nor will it ever be.

If you agree it doesn't dictate the future, then there's no problem here.



Check again.



It's already a limited segment of society. I'm just proposing a more fair limitation.



Proving, once again, that you don't



Nonsense. Many great ideas aren't feasible. Curing the common cold, perpetual motion, Greater-than-sum energy devices, etc. Fantastic concepts. Unworkable concepts, but that's not to say the idea isn't wonderful.

I never wrote it, don't know why I'd believe it.


I did, you are.


Drop the "fair". How is it any more fair than using race? Or religion? Or shirt color? It's just as random and offensive as those.


Yes, I do. The more you write about this idea, the more I think you wouldn't be unable to vote under that system.


We were writing workable, not feasable, and they aren't necessarily totally unworkable, they just aren't workable at this moment in time. Your idea would never work, not ever.

Then you admit your question isn't relevent?



Wrong. I think democracy is flawed. I'm not against it, however.



Shirt color might be interesting. Random color every year, not announced until you go to the election booth. It's just another form of random number generator, but kinda original.

It's fair because anyone who honestly cares who runs the country would automaticly qualify.



Oh, really? I ask again, do you actually know what my system is? You've yet to answer that.



Workable and feasable mean about the same thing. And greater-than-sum energy generation would violate several laws of physics, so I think we can safely say its unworkable.

My idea WOULD work, it would just be a pain in the ass. All the technology that needs to exist for it to work already exists, its just a question of expending the effort.

No, it is relevant. History has impact on the present and future. Yet at the same time, the time continuum is not static, and moves along in some kind of progression.
Is that simple enough for you?


Nope, wrong again. That's the system we have now - and the "automatically qualifying" is called showing up.


I think I've actually said at least a solid half-dozen times that I do. You've given me no evidence thus far that you actually read what I've written.


Workable and feasable do NOT mean the same thing. Why use language if you're just going to screw it up?
Then it's not a good idea. I deal with reality, not make-believe.



No, it wouldn't. I can't expand upon that more until you're involved in recounting 100,000+ ballots . . . go be involved in a recount and get back to me, then tell me it would work.

Seems to bear out my viewpoint, yeah.




It's the biggest failure that I'm trying to fix, that.



You've likewise given me no evidence that you understand my point, and given me considerable evidence that you do not, by continaully making statements that blatently go against my system.



I said about the same thing.

PAGE 21?????

(btw where's the bitch Senator Clinton thread? be fair now)

I don't vote because I don't have the interest in the people and what they do or don't stand for. If I ever did vote, I might do what my mother does and pick the one I think is the cutest.

Seriously, if I can't be bothered to educate myself on the issues and where the particular people stand, then I am not going to vote.

I agree with Reitsuki. If you don't know why you voted for someone, you shouldn't be voting. If you need someone to tell you how to vote and can't think for yourself, you shouldn't vote.

Again, I'll make the point that someone's decision-making process not being the same - or even vaguely similar - to yours does not make it less valid. I bellieve that people's decisions are equally valid regardless of how they arrive at them, but then I'm more of an inclusionist than an exclusionist.

I don't agree.

"I'm voting demi-crat 'cuz he's from my home state" or "I'm votin' repooblikin cuz' me pappy did" is less valid than "Well, I don't approve of his bart-killing policy, but I DO approve of his selma-killing policy".

But, I don't think you needed a mind reader to tell you how I would respond there...

If you start creating rights based on how people think, that will snowball soon into tyranny and opression. But, as long as it doesn't affect you that's OK, right?

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-- Pastor Martin Niemoeller

No, it COULD snowball into tyranny and opression.

Well, I'm all for comming for the communists and socialists and unionites. The jews are cool, though.



<---- Not comming for anyone, however.

Funny, anyone who wants to restrict voting rights IN ANY MANNER, FOR ANY REASON strikes me as untrustworthy, so I don't believe that.

*wanders in... sees Toni and Reitsuki still going at it... wanders out to get a beer*

The sky is blue, did you know?