"Dave Balderstone" wrote:

Try looking at Detroit through Google Earth.

It's incredible. Entire blocks with only one house left. Lots of
entire
blocks...

That's VERY old news.

Came as a direct result of the Detroit race riots of the 60s.

Whitey fled to the burbs in mass leaving a dust trail behind after the
riots.

Ask somebody, "Where you from?", and they would answer "burb name of
choice", never "Detroit".

East side of Cleveland was abandoned in the same way after the 60s
riots there.

Still abandoned when I left 20 years ago.

Lew

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority
of
the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a
majority
of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with
other
candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we
deserve someone we actually want?

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root
factor in the eventual downfall of this country.


Totally agree!

Agreed.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Dave Balderstone" wrote:

Try looking at Detroit through Google Earth.

It's incredible. Entire blocks with only one house left. Lots of entire
blocks...

That's VERY old news.

Came as a direct result of the Detroit race riots of the 60s.

Whitey fled to the burbs in mass leaving a dust trail behind after the
riots.

Ask somebody, "Where you from?", and they would answer "burb name of
choice", never "Detroit".

East side of Cleveland was abandoned in the same way after the 60s riots
there.

Still abandoned when I left 20 years ago.

Lew

Toledo was flooded with goods supposedly stolen during the Dee-troyt riots.
Most of it watches and jewelry recently imported from Japan, with brands
such as Bluvola, Eglin and Ralex.

"Neil Brooks" wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 1:15 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
Miller's right: If you don't pay taxes you should have no right to vote
and influence how that money gets spent. The only exception I'd make
is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in the military.

I'd make a few more exceptions:

- the severely disabled: as a society, I believe we have a moral
obligation to
provide for those who through no fault of their own are unable -- as
distinguished from unwilling -- to provide for themselves, yet that
inability
should not disqualify them from voting

- the short-term unemployed: being laid off after years of working
shouldn't
cost a person the right to vote

- those who volunteer to serve society in other ways besides the military,
e.g. in hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters for battered women or the
homeless,
and so on

- the retired: while those collecting social security may be a net drain
*now*, most of them are certainly a net positive when considered over the
entire span of their working lives

Scrap all of that.

How about a minimum IQ standard???


OK. What would be your standard? I vote for 150.

On Dec 30, 3:26*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/30/2009 4:08 PM, Neil Brooks wrote: On Dec 30, 1:48 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
"McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
superfluous :-)

I liked neither. *However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnteeing
that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. *I'd even
take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
Republican.)

I wonder how I made it through eight years of GWB without ever calling
him some horrid media-propagated nickname, despite having been
repulsed by virtually everything he ever did as the Leader of the Free
world.

I have no personal animus towards the current Prez. *

Your language says otherwise.

I have a loathing
for almost every policy decision AND contempt for those who worship him
as some salvific figure. *Hence the term "Messiah".

Your language says otherwise. If you don't like his supporters, then
demonize them, but -- for a lark -- try doing it like an adult might.

Meanwhile, your schoolyard name-calling (ie, "Messiah") is naught but
silly and puerile.

SNIP

Now ... to help re-frame your question ....

Why should you pay taxes?

Because the collective good is served -- in some cases, better, and in

You lost me already at "collective good". *

That's America. The words "General welfare" mean anything to you??

More evil has been done
in the name of the "collective" than any other word in human history.

Then lower yourself to THEIR level by twisting the benevolent meaning
of that phrase ... and/or outlaw religion on the same premise.

Nah. Your argument went "thud" when it fell down.

It has been used to justify all manner of mischief, oppression, brutality,
and horror. *So, frankly, I am uninterested in the "collective good."

I'm interested in preserving freedom for as many people and in as large
amount as possible. * So, by that definition, the only legitimate
use of taxation is to fund the defense of liberty from threats both within-
and without. *

Hm. That certainly just sounds like your own vision of the collective
good.

And nobody could EVER get hurt by that worldview, huh? And no
illegitimate wars could EVER be started if that's the deal, right?

Your former argument now has company on the floor.

Everything else is some form of imbalance of liberty where some
pay and some benefit, but the net amount of freedom does not increase (and in
fact is decreased from some people).

Proof by assertion, huh?

And yet ... the elements of "general welfare" that absorb a lot of tax
dollars ARE some of the primary things that Americans crow about when
marketing their nation to ... nobody in particular.

The answer is: I should happily pay taxes to defend my freedom. (And I do..)
* * * * * * * *I should resist - by all legal and ethical means - to see
* * * * * * * *tax money used for any other purpose because that is stealing.

Cut a few words, and it'll fit nicely on a bumper sticker.

On Dec 30, 3:32*pm, Swingman wrote:

A country not in decline? You've seen Detroit lately, Bubba?

As a native of that particular town ... do you also assume that --
after this latest airplane-bomber attempt -- air travel is inherently
unsafe?

Sample size issues, anybody??

On Dec 30, 5:14*pm, "CW" wrote:
"Neil Brooks" wrote in message

Scrap all of that.

How about a minimum IQ standard???

OK. What would be your standard? I vote for 150.

At the risk of being immodest, I'm going to be sucking up all the
coffee and eating the last of the donuts after everybody else has
pushed the bar up as high as they might like.

But ... that's just me ... :-)

I also think it IS a silly way to choose who votes and who doesn't,
and was hoping to indicate how unlikely it was that anybody (certainly
here, but ... generally) was ever going to draw a line that stood ANY
chance of leaving THEM outside of the polling place.

See you at the polls!

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:35:17 -0600, Swingman wrote:

Congressional Reform Act of 2010


snip of some excellent ideas

I have an even simpler idea which, of course, also doesn't have a
snowballs chance in hell.

One of the big problems is congress/senate members sending pork to their
home state to buy their re-election. So:

All representatives and senators, after their initial election, will have
no choice of venue when running for re-election. They will be randomly
assigned a state/district and must convince the voters of that state to
re-elect them.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:24:17 -0600, Leon wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
sigh


And to restate what I stated previously, why participate in such an
atrocity.

Because it helps keep the *greater* evil out of office :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Dec 30, 5:28*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:35:17 -0600, Swingman wrote:
Congressional Reform Act of 2010

snip of some excellent ideas

I have an even simpler idea which, of course, also doesn't have a
snowballs chance in hell.

One of the big problems is congress/senate members sending pork to their
home state to buy their re-election. *So:

All representatives and senators, after their initial election, will have
no choice of venue when running for re-election. *They will be randomly
assigned a state/district and must convince the voters of that state to
re-elect them.

Then they'll just send the pork home to THAT district, and campaign
for District Y based on their track record of bringing home ample
bacon. Re-election rates for incumbents would likely remain static.

Nah. If anybody wanted serious change, two things need to happen:

1) Some sort of serious lobbying reform, and

2) Public financing of all federal campaigns, only.

There is no single factor that corrupts our political process/system
as much as the infiltration of money into its core.

The other corrupting elements, in aggregate, don't come anywhere CLOSE
to measuring up.

On Dec 30, 5:35*pm, Neil Brooks wrote:

Nah. *If anybody wanted serious change, two things need to happen:

1) Some sort of serious lobbying reform, and

2) Public financing of all federal campaigns, only.

That #2 was worded ambiguously. Should have said that ONLY public
financing may be used for those campaigns.

Get the $$$$ out of politics or NOTHING substantial will change.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:11:19 -0500, the infamous "Larry C"


It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.
I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
I'm entitled. I'm saddened, but I can't blame them for thinking that
their vote doesn't mean squat. In some ways, if everyone who was
wishy-washy voted, more bad guys would win by promising more crap and,
as usual, failing to deliver any of it. (See "Obama's gonna pay my
rent/car payment/utilities" video.)

IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
elect. Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
purpose, don't you think?


Yes and no. If you truly believe that either one would do just as well as
the other, then don't vote. If you believe that one would do a better job
than the other, even if it is not the job you would like, then vote.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...



It most certainly can defeat the purpose. This has been demonstrated time
and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same,
regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.

I assume that you don't vote. If they are all the same, as you say, what
would be the point of voting?

On Dec 30, 5:52*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/30/2009 6:21 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:



On Dec 30, 3:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/30/2009 4:08 PM, Neil Brooks wrote: On Dec 30, 1:48 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
"McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
superfluous :-)

I liked neither. *However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnteeing
that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. *I'd even
take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
Republican.)

I wonder how I made it through eight years of GWB without ever calling
him some horrid media-propagated nickname, despite having been
repulsed by virtually everything he ever did as the Leader of the Free
world.

I have no personal animus towards the current Prez. *

Your language says otherwise.

I have a loathing
for almost every policy decision AND contempt for those who worship him
as some salvific figure. *Hence the term "Messiah".

Your language says otherwise. *If you don't like his supporters, then
demonize them, but -- for a lark -- try doing it like an adult might.

Meanwhile, your schoolyard name-calling (ie, "Messiah") is naught but
silly and puerile.

SNIP

Now ... to help re-frame your question ....

Why should you pay taxes?

Because the collective good is served -- in some cases, better, and in

You lost me already at "collective good". *

That's America. *The words "General welfare" mean anything to you??

More evil has been done
in the name of the "collective" than any other word in human history.

Then lower yourself to THEIR level by twisting the benevolent meaning
of that phrase ... and/or outlaw religion on the same premise.

Nah. *Your argument went "thud" when it fell down.

It has been used to justify all manner of mischief, oppression, brutality,
and horror. *So, frankly, I am uninterested in the "collective good."

I'm interested in preserving freedom for as many people and in as large
amount as possible. * So, by that definition, the only legitimate
use of taxation is to fund the defense of liberty from threats both within-
and without. *

Hm. *That certainly just sounds like your own vision of the collective
good.

And nobody could EVER get hurt by that worldview, huh? *And no
illegitimate wars could EVER be started if that's the deal, right?

Your former argument now has company on the floor.

*Everything else is some form of imbalance of liberty where some
pay and some benefit, but the net amount of freedom does not increase (and in
fact is decreased from some people).

Proof by assertion, huh?

And yet ... the elements of "general welfare" that absorb a lot of tax
dollars ARE some of the primary things that Americans crow about when
marketing their nation to ... nobody in particular.

The answer is: I should happily pay taxes to defend my freedom. (And I do.)
* * * * * * * *I should resist - by all legal and ethical means - to see
* * * * * * * *tax money used for any other purpose because that is stealing.

Cut a few words, and it'll fit nicely on a bumper sticker.

cf The Constitution Of The US
* *The Federalist Papers
* *The Declaration Of Independence
* *The letters of Jefferson et al

Therein you will find the source for my "failed arguments" and bumper stickers.

Please provide demographics, and a rather comprehensive view of the
nature of our society, the % rural vs. % urban, the percent of the GDP
that is represented by Agriculture vs. industry, etc.

Thanks.

Do you read 225 year old health texts, too, if you get MRSA?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:34:43 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 12/30/2009 10:14 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 12/30/2009 8:11 AM, Swingman wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ...

Hmm. And how would you go about determining which partner should be
disenfranchised in a divorce? By their political views?

Women should not be ... errr, never mind.

Why should they get *two* votes?

BTW, women automatically get the house in a divorce! Problem solved. g

Psst! They get the house without a divorce, too. Once you say "I
do", she gets. ;-)

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...

"Leon" wrote in message
...


You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required
to vote.

Some democratic countries (including Australia, Belgium, Switzerland,
Mexico, Argentina and Greece) have a similar requirement, and it seems to
work quite well for them.

BTW, have you noticed how few actual Communist countries there are left?

Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of
voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that
you actually want one of the people running for office.

All you have to do is deliberately spoil your ballot and you vote for
nobody, or there could be a "None of the above" choice.

Mandatory voting would be a modest infringement on our liberty, but it
would serve such a compelling public interest that IMO it would be worth
it.


What public interest? If one is not willing to vote, they probably haven't
the knowledge to make an informed vote. Lots of people choosing candidates
by coin toss does no one any good. If there are only 50 people in the
country that are willing to vote, then the election should be decided by the
50 that are concerned enough about the way the country is run.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:22:34 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


wrote in message
...



What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.

With that comment, would you please not vote any more?

Another moron heard from.

On Dec 30, 6:31*pm, "CW" wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message

m...





"Leon" wrote in message
m...

You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required
to vote.

Some democratic countries (including Australia, Belgium, Switzerland,
Mexico, Argentina and Greece) have a similar requirement, and it seems to
work quite well for them.

BTW, have you noticed how few actual Communist countries there are left?

Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. *Voting for the sake of
voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that
you actually want one of the people running for office.

All you have to do is deliberately spoil your ballot and you vote for
nobody, or there could be a "None of the above" choice.

Mandatory voting would be a modest infringement on our liberty, but it
would serve such a compelling public interest that IMO it would be worth
it.

What public interest? If one is not willing to vote, they probably haven't
the knowledge to make an informed vote. Lots of people choosing candidates
by coin toss does no one any good. If there are only 50 people in the
country that are willing to vote, then the election should be decided by the
50 that are concerned enough about the way the country is run.

Which is better, for a voting populace: to be uninformed and vote or
to be mis-informed and vote.

Where SHOULD one get their information?

Again: if you aren't reading source documents (or cross-referencing
your sources against them, periodically, to verify the objectivity of
the reporting), then ... you're just listening to what you want to
hear: slice or hook ... whatever your stripe is.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:38:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 10:53 am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.


What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.

Reference your very words above, which I had quoted in my reply. You very
clearly state the reason people don't vote.

Yes, I did. I also stated that that is their right, in a free state.

You further state that they are often too uninformed therefore should not vote.

Correct. Note the word "should". I did *not* say "should not be able
to", or "should not be allowed to", or any other words you want to put
in my mouth.

That is what I called you on. People vote on what is important to them.
That is a very real part of
the voting process. You don't have to like it, but that's life. It's not
yours to decide if that qualifies them to vote,

I didn't say anything of the sort, asshole. I said nothing about them
not being allowed to vote, just that those ignorant of the issues,
simply shouldn't. I also didn't, as you imply, say anything about
their being able to vote based on what they, or I, think about any
particular issue. IOW, you're a damned liar.

or to state that those who do not vote are simply too lazy.

The fact is that that's why most don't vote. Their being lazy or not
voting isn't dependent on my saying so, or not. The facts are the
facts.

Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
purpose, don't you think?
No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any
purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling
your life. Less is better than more.

It most certainly can defeat the purpose. This has been demonstrated time
and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same,
regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.

Nonsense. You propose that things can never be worse.

I propose no such thing. You need to stop trying to assign thoughts and
motives to other people. You only serve to embarass yourself when you are
wrong.

You certainly don't think any better than you read.

What an ass.

You are too transparent. Those who disagree with you must all be asses.

No, those who can't read or think, yet tell others what they write and
think are the asses, asshole.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:55:44 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

You don't have to be 100% happy but you should be at least 20% happy with
your pick.

If you can't find someone to vote for that you're 20% happy with,
perhaps you'd better start looking in a mirror. Read any way you
choose to


Orrrrr not vote at all..

As is your right, but do use that mirror if that's really the case.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:49:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:13:58 -0600, the infamous "Leon"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:11:19 -0500, the infamous "Larry C"


It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents,
and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya,
Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time.
I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election
I'm entitled. I'm saddened, but I can't blame them for thinking that
their vote doesn't mean squat. In some ways, if everyone who was
wishy-washy voted, more bad guys would win by promising more crap and,
as usual, failing to deliver any of it. (See "Obama's gonna pay my
rent/car payment/utilities" video.)

IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to
elect. Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the
purpose, don't you think?

It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
sigh

That's all it ever has been. There never has been a time where the
candidates will please everyone about everything. Even 80% for 80%.

"CW" wrote in message
m...

Scrap all of that.

How about a minimum IQ standard???


OK. What would be your standard? I vote for 150.



I think if you chose 85 there probably would be more politicians than
voters, assuming politicians were not included in the voter base.

On Dec 30, 6:50*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/30/2009 7:24 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:



On Dec 30, 5:52 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/30/2009 6:21 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:

On Dec 30, 3:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/30/2009 4:08 PM, Neil Brooks wrote: On Dec 30, 1:48 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
"McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
superfluous :-)

I liked neither. *However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnteeing
that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. *I'd even
take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
Republican.)

I wonder how I made it through eight years of GWB without ever calling
him some horrid media-propagated nickname, despite having been
repulsed by virtually everything he ever did as the Leader of the Free
world.

I have no personal animus towards the current Prez. *

Your language says otherwise.

I have a loathing
for almost every policy decision AND contempt for those who worship him
as some salvific figure. *Hence the term "Messiah".

Your language says otherwise. *If you don't like his supporters, then
demonize them, but -- for a lark -- try doing it like an adult might.

Meanwhile, your schoolyard name-calling (ie, "Messiah") is naught but
silly and puerile.

SNIP

Now ... to help re-frame your question ....

Why should you pay taxes?

Because the collective good is served -- in some cases, better, and in

You lost me already at "collective good". *

That's America. *The words "General welfare" mean anything to you??

More evil has been done
in the name of the "collective" than any other word in human history..

Then lower yourself to THEIR level by twisting the benevolent meaning
of that phrase ... and/or outlaw religion on the same premise.

Nah. *Your argument went "thud" when it fell down.

It has been used to justify all manner of mischief, oppression, brutality,
and horror. *So, frankly, I am uninterested in the "collective good."

I'm interested in preserving freedom for as many people and in as large
amount as possible. * So, by that definition, the only legitimate
use of taxation is to fund the defense of liberty from threats both within-
and without. *

Hm. *That certainly just sounds like your own vision of the collective
good.

And nobody could EVER get hurt by that worldview, huh? *And no
illegitimate wars could EVER be started if that's the deal, right?

Your former argument now has company on the floor.

*Everything else is some form of imbalance of liberty where some
pay and some benefit, but the net amount of freedom does not increase (and in
fact is decreased from some people).

Proof by assertion, huh?

And yet ... the elements of "general welfare" that absorb a lot of tax
dollars ARE some of the primary things that Americans crow about when
marketing their nation to ... nobody in particular.

The answer is: I should happily pay taxes to defend my freedom. (And I do.)
* * * * * * * *I should resist - by all legal and ethical means - to see
* * * * * * * *tax money used for any other purpose because that is stealing.

Cut a few words, and it'll fit nicely on a bumper sticker.

cf The Constitution Of The US
* *The Federalist Papers
* *The Declaration Of Independence
* *The letters of Jefferson et al

Therein you will find the source for my "failed arguments" and bumper stickers.

Please provide demographics, and a rather comprehensive view of the
nature of our society, the % rural vs. % urban, the percent of the GDP
that is represented by Agriculture vs. industry, etc.

Thanks.

Do you read 225 year old health texts, too, if you get MRSA?

I study books that have a demonstrated track record of either great
success or great failure - to learn to succeed or to avoid failure
respectively. *The Lockeian government formed by Jefferson et al
was a smashing success. *All collectivist systems have been abysmal
failures and usually human rights horror shows.

The demographic composition then- and now is irrelevant to this discussion
except for people trying to find ways to justify their collectivist
ideology.

It's one thing to try to model the ideals of "Conservatism," but ...
to actively ignore -- as you make it sound as though you do -- ALL of
the myriad and profound changes that have taken place in our world
since our nation's inception ... seems ... rather closed-minded, no?

To rhetorically reject all advancements of society for the purposes of
viewing -- as narrowly as humanly possible -- the intentions,
implications, scope, and ideals of the Founding Fathers ... while ...
posting on the Internet ... is something I can't quite get my head
around....

Or ... should I just adopt your approach to a discussion and say
that ... 'such a narrow view of the construction of these documents is
nothing but a way for people to justify their Social Darwinism
ideology?'

On Dec 30, 6:50*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


[snip[

Ohhhhh, Gee.

THIS just HAS to be your work:

"If ever there was any doubt about the elitist mentality of today’s
Left, one needs only to witness their condescension and smarm in
response to those who oppose their communist-lite healthcare agenda."

Am I right??

Wow. On the (slightly risky, I know) presumption that it is ...
well ... take care, then. Bye-bye.

I feel that ALL elected officials should have just TWO terms: One
as elected and one in prison for what the did in the former.


--
Nonny

ELOQUIDIOT (n) A highly educated, sophisticated,
and articulate person who has absolutely no clue
concerning what they are talking about.
The person is typically a media commentator or politician.

"Neil Brooks" wrote in message
...

Scrap all of that.

How about a minimum IQ standard???

Scrap that: where would it leave the democrats?

--
Nonny

ELOQUIDIOT (n) A highly educated, sophisticated,
and articulate person who has absolutely no clue
concerning what they are talking about.
The person is typically a media commentator or politician.

Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:15 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
Miller's right: If you don't pay taxes you should have no right to
vote and influence how that money gets spent. The only exception
I'd make is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in
the military.

I'd make a few more exceptions:

- the severely disabled: as a society, I believe we have a moral
obligation to
provide for those who through no fault of their own are unable -- as
distinguished from unwilling -- to provide for themselves, yet that
inability
should not disqualify them from voting

- the short-term unemployed: being laid off after years of working
shouldn't
cost a person the right to vote

- those who volunteer to serve society in other ways besides the
military,
e.g. in hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters for battered women or the
homeless,
and so on

- the retired: while those collecting social security may be a net
drain *now*, most of them are certainly a net positive when
considered over the
entire span of their working lives

Scrap all of that.

How about a minimum IQ standard???

Looks good on paper but has a _bad_ history in the US, where a black Caltech
PhD couldn't pass the government's IQ test but an inbred white hick could in
some states.

I have long held that there should be a voting system where the
contributors to society have the say, and the takers get what's
left. In my ideal system, the citizens of our country would get
ONE VOTE for each dollar paid in Federal Income Taxes. Period.

--
Nonny

ELOQUIDIOT (n) A highly educated, sophisticated,
and articulate person who has absolutely no clue
concerning what they are talking about.
The person is typically a media commentator or politician.

On Dec 30, 8:20*pm, "Nonny" wrote:
"Neil Brooks" wrote in message

...

Scrap all of that.

How about a minimum IQ standard???

Scrap that: *where would it leave the democrats?

In office, obviously, but I'm not sure that solves anything....

On Dec 30, 8:20*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:15 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
Miller's right: If you don't pay taxes you should have no right to
vote and influence how that money gets spent. The only exception
I'd make is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in
the military.

I'd make a few more exceptions:

- the severely disabled: as a society, I believe we have a moral
obligation to
provide for those who through no fault of their own are unable -- as
distinguished from unwilling -- to provide for themselves, yet that
inability
should not disqualify them from voting

- the short-term unemployed: being laid off after years of working
shouldn't
cost a person the right to vote

- those who volunteer to serve society in other ways besides the
military,
e.g. in hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters for battered women or the
homeless,
and so on

- the retired: while those collecting social security may be a net
drain *now*, most of them are certainly a net positive when
considered over the
entire span of their working lives

Scrap all of that.

How about a minimum IQ standard???

Looks good on paper but has a _bad_ history in the US, where a black Caltech
PhD couldn't pass the government's IQ test but an inbred white hick could in
some states.

They do usually point to Stanford-Binet as being *terrifyingly*
culturally biased, so ... yeah ... I agree.

By the way ... that latter chap lives about three doors down from
me ;-)

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:24:17 -0600, Leon wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

It has come down to voting for the lesser of several evils lately.
sigh


And to restate what I stated previously, why participate in such an
atrocity.

Because it helps keep the *greater* evil out of office :-).


These days, I'm not so sure there really is a greater evil and a lesser
evil - just a different evil.

--

-Mike-

"CW" wrote in message
m...

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...



It most certainly can defeat the purpose. This has been demonstrated
time and time again, as Washington critters prove to be one and the same,
regardles of their party affiliation or their promises.

I assume that you don't vote. If they are all the same, as you say, what
would be the point of voting?

You should not make that assumption. I was responding to a very specific
statement. I do vote and I do so with no idealistic expectations of things
being different - just different.

The idea of a noble idealist running for political office who will genuinely
change the world is nearly absurd. If that person ever existed, he/she
would surely be either overwhelmed or corrupted by the system. The net is
that regardless of the left or right lean of the person, the tactics and
process would be the same.

--

-Mike-

"CW" wrote in message
...


What public interest? If one is not willing to vote, they probably haven't
the knowledge to make an informed vote.

Pure and unadulterated Bull. While it certainly is true that some people
are uninformed, to state as you do, that non-voters simply do not have the
knowledge to vote is pure bull. There are plenty of people who have been on
this earth a very long time who have simply gotten frustrated with the
voting process and the entire charade that we call politics. These people
are very informed. Maybe more so than others.

Lots of people choosing candidates by coin toss does no one any good.

And how often do you really believe this happens?


--

-Mike-

"krw" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:38:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 10:53 am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.


What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.

Reference your very words above, which I had quoted in my reply. You very
clearly state the reason people don't vote.

Yes, I did. I also stated that that is their right, in a free state.

You don't get it do you? You presume to dictate the reason that people
don't vote. You are clueless.


You further state that they are often too uninformed therefore should not
vote.

Correct. Note the word "should". I did *not* say "should not be able
to", or "should not be allowed to", or any other words you want to put
in my mouth.

Learn to read. Look up above - see what I wrote? Understand it? Let me
type it slowly so you don't get lost... You have no priviledge to presume
who should and who should not vote. It's just not yours to decide. It's
not necessary to put words in your mouth. I simply leave your very words
included in my replies and they speak for themselves. After that you simply
try to spin and dig yourself deeper and deeper in.


That is what I called you on. People vote on what is important to them.
That is a very real part of
the voting process. You don't have to like it, but that's life. It's not
yours to decide if that qualifies them to vote,

I didn't say anything of the sort, asshole. I

Asshole huh? I guess I pushed you to your intellectual limits.

said nothing about them
not being allowed to vote, just that those ignorant of the issues,
simply shouldn't.

As decreed by you. Yet - you have displayed a complete inability to conduct
a conversation without resorting to vulgarity and mis-representing the words
of another - so tell me - are you qualified to vote?

I also didn't, as you imply, say anything about
their being able to vote based on what they, or I, think about any
particular issue. IOW, you're a damned liar.

You really need to learn to read.


or to state that those who do not vote are simply too lazy.

The fact is that that's why most don't vote. Their being lazy or not
voting isn't dependent on my saying so, or not. The facts are the
facts.

The fact? According to you? Please support your assertion of a "fact".


No, those who can't read or think, yet tell others what they write and
think are the asses, asshole.

That would be what I suggested of your postings from the beginning. So... I
guess you've proven my original point.

--

-Mike-

"Nonny" wrote in message
...

I feel that ALL elected officials should have just TWO terms: One as
elected and one in prison for what the did in the former.


Nonny - I know you're just stirring a bucket of **** with that comment, but
I have to say - it's probably the best comment to have appeared in this
thread.

--

-Mike-

On 12/30/09 9:15 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:50 pm, Tim wrote:


[snip[

Ohhhhh, Gee.

THIS just HAS to be your work:

"If ever there was any doubt about the elitist mentality of today’s
Left, one needs only to witness their condescension and smarm in
response to those who oppose their communist-lite healthcare agenda."

Am I right??

Wow. On the (slightly risky, I know) presumption that it is ...
well ... take care, then. Bye-bye.


As you spoon feed us irony as to be so condescending and smarmy with
your assertion.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:38:50 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"krw" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:38:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 10:53 am, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in
any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated
opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote.


What a presumptuous fool you are! I said nothing about what people
should believe or how they should vote, or even whether they should be
allowed to vote. I do believe that perhaps they shouldn't vote if
they haven't made some effort in understanding the issues. Most
don't, so we end up with a mess like we have currently.

Reference your very words above, which I had quoted in my reply. You very
clearly state the reason people don't vote.

Yes, I did. I also stated that that is their right, in a free state.

You don't get it do you? You presume to dictate the reason that people
don't vote. You are clueless.

No, fool, it is *you* who doesn't get it. I don't dictate anything,
only observe. You see, unlike you, I don't have an pretensions that
those who I've never met care what I think. I can, however, observe
and report on their *actions*.

You further state that they are often too uninformed therefore should not
vote.

Correct. Note the word "should". I did *not* say "should not be able
to", or "should not be allowed to", or any other words you want to put
in my mouth.

Learn to read. Look up above - see what I wrote? Understand it? Let me
type it slowly so you don't get lost... You have no priviledge to presume
who should and who should not vote. It's just not yours to decide. It's
not necessary to put words in your mouth. I simply leave your very words
included in my replies and they speak for themselves. After that you simply
try to spin and dig yourself deeper and deeper in.

No, fool, it is *you* who needs remedial reading. I said nothing
about who should _get_ to vote. I said the ignorant *shouldn't*.
Unlike others here, I didn't advocate any position on who should have
the right to vote. Now, go back and read what I wrote again. Then
you can come back with your weewee between your butt cheeks and
apologize. What a moron!

That is what I called you on. People vote on what is important to them.
That is a very real part of
the voting process. You don't have to like it, but that's life. It's not
yours to decide if that qualifies them to vote,

I didn't say anything of the sort, asshole. I

Asshole huh? I guess I pushed you to your intellectual limits.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. You *are* an asshole; no question.

said nothing about them
not being allowed to vote, just that those ignorant of the issues,
simply shouldn't.

As decreed by you. Yet - you have displayed a complete inability to conduct
a conversation without resorting to vulgarity and mis-representing the words
of another - so tell me - are you qualified to vote?

You're a goddamned liar, asshole. It is *you* who are misrepresenting
what I have said. What a fickwit.

I also didn't, as you imply, say anything about
their being able to vote based on what they, or I, think about any
particular issue. IOW, you're a damned liar.

You really need to learn to read.

No, asshole, it is you who is illiterate. What a ****wit.

or to state that those who do not vote are simply too lazy.

The fact is that that's why most don't vote. Their being lazy or not
voting isn't dependent on my saying so, or not. The facts are the
facts.

The fact? According to you? Please support your assertion of a "fact".

WHat a ****wit. Can't you breathe either?

No, those who can't read or think, yet tell others what they write and
think are the asses, asshole.

That would be what I suggested of your postings from the beginning. So... I
guess you've proven my original point.

You're a ****ing liar. No surprise, most leftist clowns are.

DGDevin wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

In article , Swingman
wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would
disenfranchise
the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to
vote.
That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.

I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government
handouts.

So if through no fault of yours you can no longer work (say due to
illness) and you receive public assistance, you would no longer be allowed
to vote? That strikes me as pointlessly unfair.


Or it becomes a powerful motivation to become productive again. As others
recommended, a 5 year moving average or other mechanisms could address this.

This is rapidly becoming more than an academic exercise. We are coming
very close to the point where less than 50% of taxpayers will be paying
nearly 100% of income taxes. When we swing past that point, the majority
being non-payers will view the minority as their source of funding and
government largess. That's going to result in a rapid downward spiral as
the dependent class starts voting for those who promise the most and the
productive class stops being so productive because the results of their
labors are being taken from them to the point it is no longer worth the
effort.


.... snip
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 30, 8:20 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:
On Dec 30, 1:15 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
Miller's right: If you don't pay taxes you should have no right to
vote and influence how that money gets spent. The only exception
I'd make is for people who've volunteered to serve the nation in
the military.

I'd make a few more exceptions:

- the severely disabled: as a society, I believe we have a moral
obligation to
provide for those who through no fault of their own are unable --
as distinguished from unwilling -- to provide for themselves, yet
that inability
should not disqualify them from voting

- the short-term unemployed: being laid off after years of working
shouldn't
cost a person the right to vote

- those who volunteer to serve society in other ways besides the
military,
e.g. in hospitals, soup kitchens, shelters for battered women or
the homeless,
and so on

- the retired: while those collecting social security may be a net
drain *now*, most of them are certainly a net positive when
considered over the
entire span of their working lives

Scrap all of that.

How about a minimum IQ standard???

Looks good on paper but has a _bad_ history in the US, where a black
Caltech PhD couldn't pass the government's IQ test but an inbred
white hick could in some states.

They do usually point to Stanford-Binet as being *terrifyingly*
culturally biased, so ... yeah ... I agree.

That aside, it didn't matter what answers you gave on the test.

By the way ... that latter chap lives about three doors down from
me ;-)

Nonny wrote:
I have long held that there should be a voting system where the
contributors to society have the say, and the takers get what's
left. In my ideal system, the citizens of our country would get
ONE VOTE for each dollar paid in Federal Income Taxes. Period.

So you're saying that Bill Gates runs the country?