NationStates Jolt Archive

For too long have the uneducated masses been able to exert their uninformed opinions upon the political landscape in this country. They have little appreciation for the true issues at play and instead vote based on their own narrow, artless view of the world. In this global age, we cannot allow that trend to persist lest we be inundated with a sea of inane ideas which are supported by the ignorant majority. If left unchecked, our economy will collapse, our global standing will deteriorate, and our protection from terrorism will be rendered null and void. We must impose restrictions upon those who vote to eliminate undesirables who know next to nothing of politics and vote on blind, unquestioning party allegiance. We must develop a political aptitude test which must be passed by all potential voters prior to allowing them to endorse their candidate. It will not be an IQ test, of course (as that would most likely lead to liberal elitists ruling the country, despite their idiotic and arrogant opinions), but rather a gauge of how well informed one is of the political situation in the US and the world. Through this method, only those who know a thing or two about the candidates, their platforms, basic cause and effect, etc., can vote. There is, however, a more ominous problem which threatens to destroy the foundation of America from within.

That is, the poor have the right to vote, even though they have an insufficient stake in government. They could care less how economically viable the US is because their primary concern is acquiring more money for themselves. Now, the framers were onto something when the wrote the Constitution and assorted state documents -- back then, only the wealthy could vote. Because of that policy, the US was able to expand economically by putting national success over the petty concerns of the poor. Certainly, I do not want society to not represent the interests of the poor at all. However, there is nothing stopping the poor from electing a candidate who wishes to forcibly redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. In fact, if there are enough poor and middle-class people who are in favor of such an idea, it could be passed into law, dealing a death blow to our economy. If everybody had an equal say in the way government was run and followed their own self-interest, legislation would have already been passed ruining the rich and the entire economy to benefit the poor -- laws would have been enacted allowing the state to steal money from the rich and bequeath it to the poor. Such ghastly consequences must be avoided at all costs. Thus, I propose we run US elections like shareholders run a company -- those who have the most money invested in the US have the biggest say. Instead of the current "one person, one vote" philosophy, we should institute a "one dollar, one vote" philosophy. A policy such as this could be somewhat likened to "privatization," which has shown across-the-board successes wherever it was instituted. Why not apply it to voting? Such reforms are necessary to ensure a better future for the US.

For too long have the uneducated masses been able to exert their uninformed opinions upon the political landscape in this country.

If you feel that strongly about it, take action. Leave immediately. I hear Iran is willing to pay for Americans.

Here we go again:rolleyes:. How about we criticise the view, then don't post and let the thread die as quickly as possible. Such people thrive on attention

Hee-hee.

I thought that's what we had in place already, kinda sorta...but hey, at least I got all the way through this worthless diatribe without my head exploding.

Seriously, do you believe all of this horseshit or do you just sit around and think of terrible ideas like this one?

If you feel that strongly about it, take action. Leave immediately. I hear Iran is willing to pay for Americans.

Yes, a whole twenty bucks. That's worth twenty votes, you know.

If you feel that strongly about it, take action. Leave immediately. I hear Iran is willing to pay for Americans.

I want educated people to have a say in government; however, allowing anyone, no matter how stupid or uninformed, to vote would have disastrous consequences. Nonetheless, a dictatorship is no better.

They could care less how economically viable the US is because their primary concern is acquiring more money for themselves.Interesting. This sentence applies very well to any CEO with a massive paycheck and a company busy outsourcing jobs. Not the poor though.

Yawn.

Interesting. This sentence applies very well to any CEO with a massive paycheck and a company busy outsourcing jobs. Not the poor though.

So, CEO's shouldn't be allowed to vote? I like this.

Obviously MeanstoaPuppet has never read the history of why anti-trust laws were put into place.

For too long have the uneducated masses been able to exert their uninformed opinions upon the political landscape in this country. They have little appreciation for the true issues at play and instead vote based on their own narrow, artless view of the world. In this global age, we cannot allow that trend to persist lest we be inundated with a sea of inane ideas which are supported by the ignorant majority. If left unchecked, our economy will collapse, our global standing will deteriorate, and our protection from terrorism will be rendered null and void. We must impose restrictions upon those who vote to eliminate undesirables who know next to nothing of politics and vote on blind, unquestioning party allegiance. We must develop a political aptitude test which must be passed by all potential voters prior to allowing them to endorse their candidate. It will not be an IQ test, of course (as that would most likely lead to liberal elitists ruling the country, despite their idiotic and arrogant opinions), but rather a gauge of how well informed one is of the political situation in the US and the world. Through this method, only those who know a thing or two about the candidates, their platforms, basic cause and effect, etc., can vote. There is, however, a more ominous problem which threatens to destroy the foundation of America from within.

That is, the poor have the right to vote, even though they have an insufficient stake in government. They could care less how economically viable the US is because their primary concern is acquiring more money for themselves. Now, the framers were onto something when the wrote the Constitution and assorted state documents -- back then, only the wealthy could vote. Because of that policy, the US was able to expand economically by putting national success over the petty concerns of the poor. Certainly, I do not want society to not represent the interests of the poor at all. However, there is nothing stopping the poor from electing a candidate who wishes to forcibly redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. In fact, if there are enough poor and middle-class people who are in favor of such an idea, it could be passed into law, dealing a death blow to our economy. If everybody had an equal say in the way government was run and followed their own self-interest, legislation would have already been passed ruining the rich and the entire economy to benefit the poor -- laws would have been enacted allowing the state to steal money from the rich and bequeath it to the poor. Such ghastly consequences must be avoided at all costs. Thus, I propose we run US elections like shareholders run a company -- those who have the most money invested in the US have the biggest say. Instead of the current "one person, one vote" philosophy, we should institute a "one dollar, one vote" philosophy. A policy such as this could be somewhat likened to "privatization," which has shown across-the-board successes wherever it was instituted. Why not apply it to voting? Such reforms are necessary to ensure a better future for the US.


*waits*











...



...






...um....









Where's the punchline? :confused:

Where's the punchline? :confused:

In front of the computer that's logged into the name "MeansToAnEnd" if you must know.

I thought that's what we had in place already, kinda sorta...

Oh, really? Do you have to take a test to vote? Does a rich man have more votes than a poor man? Please, I'm dealing with reality here, not your fantasy world.

Seriously, do you believe all of this horseshit or do you just sit around and think of terrible ideas like this one?

What's wrong with my idea?

I want educated people to have a say in government; however, allowing anyone, no matter how stupid or uninformed, to vote would have disastrous consequences. Nonetheless, a dictatorship is no better.

i could somewhat agree with you.
i think after 16years of age, one must do at least 14 hours of army training a week for four years. part of which would be learning about current affairs. only after completion one can vote.

Where's the punchline? :confused:

I don't believe that the future of the US is a joke.

For too long have the uneducated masses been able to exert their uninformed opinions upon the political landscape in this country. They have little appreciation for the true issues at play and instead vote based on their own narrow, artless view of the world.

ie the Christian Right. I like this so far

as that would most likely lead to liberal elitists ruling the country, despite their idiotic and arrogant opinions


you are arguing for restrictions on who can vote based on some notion of intellegence and the liberals are arrogant? :p

A policy such as this could be somewhat likened to "privatization," which has shown across-the-board successes wherever it was instituted.

you just failed your own test about current affairs and economics with that inaccurate sweeping statement. well done

Oh, really? Do you have to take a test to vote? Does a rich man have more votes than a poor man? Please, I'm dealing with reality here, not your fantasy world.

Poor people tend to vote in the interests of rich people who use their money to influence them through TV ads and what-not. That is, if poor people vote at all; many are discouraged or don't care enough. Believe me, if everyone voted, there might be a little more equality, but so far, even if there is the power to vote, the wealth has always gravitated toward the rich. No redistribution of wealth is really in force no matter how many of you paranoid neocon whack jobs want to believe there is.

What's wrong with my idea?

Gee whiz, with the wealthiest 1% controlling a huge chunk of the wealth, that almost voids everyone else's vote. Soon enough, if they put that system in place, they can start putting in minimum income requirements to vote, and we're back to a plutocracy. Oh wait, I just wasted precious logic replying to this post. Then again, I wasted precious intelligence reading it, as we all did.

I don't believe that the future of the US is a joke.

I don't think you would know what a joke was if it hit you in the face.

I don't believe that the future of the US is a joke.

However, your feeble attempt to troll is.

Blah blah blah, slavery is good, blah blah blah, poor people shouldn't vote, or breed, blah blah blah.

Still, a commendable effort at trolling. I expect this one will last up to a week and going at least 20 pages. Good work.

. No redistribution of wealth is really in force no matter how many of you paranoid neocon whack jobs want to believe there is.
.

to be fair, that situation only exists because of right wing american paranoia and fear mongering.

what they have they protect with fire

I don't believe that the future of the US is a joke.

Planning on moving overseas? :)

I don't believe that the future of the US is a joke.

But your posts indicate otherwise.

No redistribution of wealth is really in force no matter how many of you paranoid neocon whack jobs want to believe there is.

So I'm just imagining "progressive" taxation which punishes the successful because the poor are too inadequate to become rich? Is the US not a welfare state where the indolent can expect the support of the rich, who pay the very large majority of taxes? No, there is forced redistribution of wealth in place already, which is ruinous for the US economy.

Gee whiz, with the wealthiest 1% controlling a huge chunk of the wealth, that almost voids everyone else's vote.

Get your facts straight. The wealthiest 5% control 50% of the wealth, which is equal to everybody else's vote and hardly voids is. If you want to have more of a say in government, you should have more of a stake in it by becoming richer instead of being lazy.

to be fair, that situation only exists because of right wing american paranoia and fear mongering.

what they have they protect with fire

And it's that paranoia and fearmongering that prevents any distribution of wealth.

Aside from that, I came up with the idea of a dystopian U.S. that had a government run like a corporation, in which people bought stock in it and voted in elections based on how much stock they had. I brought it up in another thread; I forget which one. And now MTAE has stolen my idea and tried to turn it into legitimate reform. What's he going to do next, model his ideal state after "1984"?

So I'm just imagining "progressive" taxation which punishes the successful because the poor are too inadequate to become rich? Is the US not a welfare state where the indolent can expect the support of the rich, who pay the very large majority of taxes? No, there is forced redistribution of wealth in place already, which is ruinous for the US economy.



Get your facts straight. The wealthiest 5% control 50% of the wealth, which is equal to everybody else's vote and hardly voids is. If you want to have more of a say in government, you should have more of a stake in it by becoming richer instead of being lazy.

This is funnier than Spaceballs. Keep going.

This is funnier than Spaceballs. Keep going.

I don't know about that... does Means to an End have a Schwartz Saber?

I don't know about that... does Means to an End have a Schwartz Saber?

I bet my Schwartz is bigger than his.

Soon enough, if they put that system in place, they can start putting in minimum income requirements to vote, and we're back to a plutocracy.

That's false. By the same token, the poor and middle-class people who control 90% or such of the total voting potential would be able to impose maximum income requirements to vote. They haven't, however, because they believe in democracy, as do the rich. The rich would not want to anger the poor too much -- they are dangerous. As Hamilton said, "your people, [sir], are a great beast."

Planning on moving overseas? :)

We could forcibly move him overseas....or sink the boat thats carrying him ;)

I bet my Schwartz is bigger than his.

OH that's a given. You can tell when someone is overcompensating for the size of their Schwartz.

We could forcibly move him overseas....or sink the boat thats carring him ;)

Two words: Human Cannonball. :)

And it's that paranoia and fearmongering that prevents any distribution of wealth.

No, Democrats are already taking this country on the road to communism as we speak. They have implemented draconian progressive taxation measures to punish the rich. They have created a welfare system to reward the poor and lazy at the expense of the rich. It's fear-mongering which prevents these obsolete socialist systems from being dismantled. We must repeal them lest we fall into the same hole that has claimed the economies of France, Belgium, etc.

So I'm just imagining "progressive" taxation which punishes the successful because the poor are too inadequate to become rich? Is the US not a welfare state where the indolent can expect the support of the rich, who pay the very large majority of taxes? No, there is forced redistribution of wealth in place already, which is ruinous for the US economy.

And I'm just imagining the numerous tax loopholes that rich people use to evade paying taxes? I'm just imagining the $2 million tax refund issued to one Dick Cheney? There is not forced redistribution of wealth; there's only the appearance of such.

Get your facts straight. The wealthiest 5% control 50% of the wealth, which is equal to everybody else's vote and hardly voids is. If you want to have more of a say in government, you should have more of a stake in it by becoming richer instead of being lazy.

And the wealthiest 1% are in a better position than that. Even so, if the wealthiest 5% control 50% of the wealth, that means 50% of the voting power under your system, and probably more when we factor in how many poor people don't vote. If that 5% stands united in preserving its own self-interest (and most of it will) then the rest of the country's vote is void.

And we all know rich people didn't necessarily become rich just by working hard; they ahd every advantage given to them by their rich parents. George W. Bush wouldn't even be able to find the White House with a map and a tour guide if he were raised by middle-class parents, and if Paris Hilton had parents in my income bracket, she would be living in a gutter somewhere. But we all know that, if people figured that out, your illusion of how wonderful America is would fall apart, and we could stop sneering at the poor and telling them to "get a job" when we wouldn't hire them for anything to begin with.

We could forcibly move him overseas....or sink the boat thats carring him ;)

So you'd kill those who disagree with you, eh? You'd squash political opposition to your ideas? I wouldn't expect any less from people like you.

And the wealthiest 1% are in a better position than that. Even so, if the wealthiest 5% control 50% of the wealth, that means 50% of the voting power under your system, and probably more when we factor in how many poor people don't vote. If that 5% stands united in preserving its own self-interest (and most of it will) then the rest of the country's vote is void.

You're being paranoid. If what you suggest is true, then the vote of the rich would be void under the current system, as they hold very little of the political power compared to the poor and middle-class. Nonetheless, we have not enacted horrible measures to curtail the power of the rich except allowing progressive taxation. The vote of the rich, right now, is void, despite the fact that they are the engine which powers our economy.

Here is a short end to the argument: "I don't want to be wealthy and my vote will always equal yours." Deal with it.

That's false. By the same token, the poor and middle-class people who control 90% or such of the total voting potential would be able to impose maximum income requirements to vote. They haven't, however, because they believe in democracy, as do the rich. The rich would not want to anger the poor too much -- they are dangerous. As Hamilton said, "your people, [sir], are a great beast."

Hardly. The poor and middle class don't "believe in democracy" any more than the rich do. No one has tried to impose maxinum income requirements because we all live under a system called the "achievement ideology" and would not seek to disenfranchise people for making too much money. We believe that those people are successes. And enough people believe it that any attempt to weaken the rich is met with swift opposition.

By the same token, we don't need minimum income requirements for voting because the people in power don't feel threatened by the poor. I could go on all day about this, but I would have better luck conversing with a brick wall.

No, Democrats are already taking this country on the road to communism as we speak. They have implemented draconian progressive taxation measures to punish the rich. They have created a welfare system to reward the poor and lazy at the expense of the rich. It's fear-mongering which prevents these obsolete socialist systems from being dismantled. We must repeal them lest we fall into the same hole that has claimed the economies of France, Belgium, etc.

communism? economy of belguim in a hole?

you realise you will fail your own test on current affairs with wild nonsense like that. very ironic.

do you appreaciate that removing the 'ignorant' for want of a better expression from the US electorate will hurt the republicans much more than the democrats?

communism? economy of belguim in a hole?

you realise you will fail your own test on current affairs with wild nonsense like that. very ironic.

do you appreaciate that removing the 'ignorant' for want of a better expression from the US electorate will hurt the republicans much more than the democrats?

Also, we would do well to emulate Belgium if only for the excellent waffles.

...It will not be an IQ test, of course (as that would most likely lead to liberal elitists ruling the country..

Says it all, really...

No, Democrats are already taking this country on the road to communism as we speak.

i thnik thats going a little overboard.

Here is a short end to the argument: "I don't want to be wealthy and my vote will always equal yours." Deal with it.

I'm sure that Americans in prior centuries would have used similar logic to preserve their own outdated views. They'd say something along the lines of, "I want you to be my slave and your vote will always be non-existent. Deal with it." Luckily, their quaint ideals were washed away by the passage of time. The same will be true of yours.

i thnik thats going a little overboard.

One core principle of communism is the economic equality of everybody, which is exactly the object of progressive taxation.

I'm sure that Americans in prior centuries would have used similar logic to preserve their own outdated views. They'd say something along the lines of, "I want you to be my slave and your vote will always be non-existent. Deal with it." Luckily, their quaint ideals were washed away by the passage of time. The same will be true of yours.

Your comparing my position to slavery? How deliciously ironic!

Luckily, their quaint ideals were washed away by the passage of time. The same will be true of yours.

Oh hey, who died and made you Dictator?

You DO know this is a non-roleplaying forum, right?

The "future of the US" has jack shit to do with what you or I post on this forum.

Anyway, keep up the trolling. Page 2 in a short amount of time - you're doing great!

Says it all, really...

What does it say? That college-educated, bleeding-heart, lazy liberals would vote for the candidate which would allow them to get rich without working a day in their life?

You're being paranoid. If what you suggest is true, then the vote of the rich would be void under the current system, as they hold very little of the political power compared to the poor and middle-class. Nonetheless, we have not enacted horrible measures to curtail the power of the rich except allowing progressive taxation. The vote of the rich, right now, is void, despite the fact that they are the engine which powers our economy.

Go on glorifying rich people. Rich people pick the candidates for major offices. Rich people set up a system where third parties cannot possibly win. Rich people tend to go with other rich people as candidates for public office (and sadly, the American public seems to gobble it up...those who come from rich backgrounds tend to be more popular, at least as Presidents, than those who don't.) Therefore, rich people don't even need their vote that much; they control the nominations. Money also controls advertising and gets people's names out; who has money? Naturally the rich people do. I am not being paranoid. Frankly, you're being paranoid that your beloved rich people might end up losing some of their power and that some economic strength may be sacrificed in order to provide needed services for people who actually need them.

Also, we would do well to emulate Belgium if only for the excellent waffles.

and their beer. fucking spectacular stuff.

always amazed me that a nation with 20,000 beers could be so damn dull.

:rolleyes: Meh... The beginning was a bit droll, like any other political statement. It lacked omph! It lacked pazazz!

But it got better at the end. I giggled a bit :p

All in all, not your best work by far, but in tune with the popular topic as of right now.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/score003.gif


oh, and PAGE 4 PEOPLE! ;)


Two words: Human Cannonball. :)

:eek: I like it! :D

Rich people set up a system where third parties cannot possibly win.

It is extremely easy for third parties to win if the poor and middle-class agree with them more than they do with the two major parties. In fact, the rich have extremely little power under our current system, where Bill Gates counts as much as that crazy cat woman who thinks that a feline should be president. If poor people are easily convinced by various ads like you claim, that is a sad reflection on their ability to vote in an informed manner. If they are so stupid as to believe the first ad they see, they shouldn't be voting in the first place.

One core principle of communism is the economic equality of everybody, which is exactly the object of progressive taxation.

absolute ignorance.

communists believe everone has a potential that is rarely achieved under capitalism. those potentials are different for different people, but poverty prevents people from achieving their maximium. not that everyone is equal in terms of ability

you are really taking the piss now. arguing yourself out of a vote in your plan :rolleyes:

The vote of the rich, right now, is void, despite the fact that they are the engine which powers our economy.

In the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren :
Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.

So subjectively "stupid" people should be slaves.
Poor people should have less of a say in gov't that rich people.

Since by your definition, "poor" people are stupid and lazy, they wouldn't get to vote anyway and the "rich" 5%would completely control gov't with well over 50% of the voting power, redistributing wealth to themselves.

:rolleyes: Meh... The beginning was a bit droll, like any other political statement. It lacked omph! It lacked pazazz!

You seem to think that I am posting these topics for my own amusements. I am not. I am trying to point out some grave injustices in our society which threaten to destroy our country, and my attempts are undermined by your frequent, trollish comments. Please, abstain from spamming and debate the matter at hand.

Hey everyone! Take a free IQ test. Simply count the bills in your wallet!

In fact, the rich have extremely little power under our current system, where Bill Gates counts as much as that crazy cat woman who thinks that a feline should be president.

you dont believe that.

so why say it?

You seem to think that I am posting these topics for my own amusements. I am not. I am trying to point out some grave injustices in our society which threaten to destroy our country.

you have a strange sense of injustice.

participatory democracy threatens to destroy the US?

not that everyone is equal in terms of ability

Right, and if I had actually said that, I would have been mistaken. However, you are putting words in my mouth and debating that. It's quite funny, but an incredibly bad tactic.

Oh, by the way, Bush is the current president of the US, not Clinton. Saying that Clinton is the current president underlies your gross ignorance.

So you'd kill those who disagree with you, eh? You'd squash political opposition to your ideas? I wouldn't expect any less from people like you.

Well I guess I am a poor, non pure white, liberal, so obviously I am a barbaric fool that wants all opposition dead so that way I can rape their bodies, and steal their stuff.:rolleyes:

What does it say?

As you put it yourself, if voting were purely based on IQ, only liberals would be enfranchised. That with Liberals being intelligent and all...

That college-educated, bleeding-heart, lazy liberals would vote for the candidate which would allow them to get rich without working a day in their life?

I assure you, once I graduate, I'll vote for who I like. And surprise fucking surprise, I'll vote for the candidate who best represents my interests. And if that's Mickey Mouse, I'll vote for Mickey Mouse. You do the same, mister, vote for who represents your interests.

The difference is, you want to disenfranchise who doesn't vote for the conservative candidates who supposedly represent your interests. I don't.

you dont believe that.

so why say it?

Not only do I believe it, but it's objectively true. Bill Gates has one vote, as does that crazy cat woman who believes a feline should be president. Does that seem even remotely fair to you? Don't you think we should filter out some of the wackos and idiots who have as much say as everybody else in the future of the US?

It is extremely easy for third parties to win if the poor and middle-class agree with them more than they do with the two major parties. In fact, the rich have extremely little power under our current system, where Bill Gates counts as much as that crazy cat woman who thinks that a feline should be president. If poor people are easily convinced by various ads like you claim, that is a sad reflection on their ability to vote in an informed manner. If they are so stupid as to believe the first ad they see, they shouldn't be voting in the first place.

You expect a lot out of people. Basically, here's how it works - two candidates get all of the funding. No one knows anything about any other candidates. One of the two candidates wins. In very specific cases where people are fond of a particular well-known independent, that person may make it into Congress, but it's rare. People vote what they know; if you hear the name "George W. Bush" a thousand times, "John Kerry" a thousand times, and "David Cobb" once, you're more likely to vote for George W. Bush or John Kerry without giving a passing thought to David Cobb. It's advertising, and it doesn't play on stupidity...well, sometimes it does, but that's beside the point. By controlling the airwaves and the party process, the rich are able to keep getting rich-friendly people elected. To deny that this happens is borderline insane.

And as I said, poor people tend not to vote; it has nothing to do with being stupid and everything to do with being more concerned about putting food on the table than about which political candidate will help them more. Aside from that, with as much money as what's floating around Washington, people will get corrupted and tax money will tend to go to keep Congress members happy. Again, to deny that this happens is borderline insane.

Well I guess I am a poor, non pure white, liberal, so obviously I am a barbaric fool that wants all opposition dead so that way I can rape their bodies, and steal their stuff.:rolleyes:

I just want a definition of what exactly "people like you" means and if I'm included in that list.

so MTAE...you admit now that you hate democracy?

Not only do I believe it, but it's objectively true. Bill Gates has one vote, as does that crazy cat woman who believes a feline should be president. Does that seem even remotely fair to you?

Yes. It does.

Given the amount of money she'll have when she inherits, MTAE's idea would make Paris Hilton one of the most powerful people in the country. I'm sure she could manage a current events tutor to get past the test.

But what of the bleeding heart, liberal elitists in Hollywood? Some of them are pretty well-off and reasonably well-informed, too. Of course, it depends on who's writing the test questions, I guess.

if voting were purely based on IQ, only liberals would be enfranchised. That with Liberals being intelligent and all...

There you go again, spouting your gross, liberal, arrogance. Guess what? Conservatives are just as smart as liberals. You don't have a monopoly on intelligence. If liberals were so smart, how come most of the people living below the poverty line are liberals? Are they so smart that they can't get a job?

frequent, trollish comments

Hello, Pot? Yeah, it's for you. it's Kettle.

Saying that Clinton is the current president underlies your gross ignorance.

what the fuck does that mean you loon?

so MTAE...you admit now that you hate democracy?

Of course not. I simply believe that it should be restricted to those who are capable of making informed decisions.

what the fuck does that mean you loon?

Actually, the loon is an animal, not a type of sewing machine. The word which you are looking for is "loom," a mechinal device which can process fabrics.

Of course not. I simply believe that I should get lots of attention because I'm a needy attention-whore. Wah! I'm speshul! Look at me!

And now at last we agree.

I just want a definition of what exactly "people like you" means and if I'm included in that list.

I'm sure most everyone here is on that list.

so MTAE...you admit now that you hate democracy?

I do think that is what he is saying. But really, couldn't you tell that from his other posts?

There you go again, spouting your gross, liberal, arrogance. Guess what? Conservatives are just as smart as liberals. You don't have a monopoly on intelligence.
Aha! Thus proving your argument to be based on complete bullshit, you complete cretin. If votes=intelligence (as you claimed) and liberal's intelligence=conservative's intelligence, then liberals and conservatives should have the same amount of votes.

You lose.

If liberals were so smart, how come most of the people living below the poverty line are liberals? Are they so smart that they can't get a job?
For the same reason most rich are conservative, they represent their economic interests.

Of course not. I simply believe that it should be restricted to those who are capable of making informed decisions.

So you feel that (for example) the heiress Paris Hilton is more informed because she inherited her money than me, w/ a MA in History because I'm only making $30K/year and supporting a family?

You expect a lot out of people.

It's their own damn fault if they don't vote for the candidate who is most closely aligned with their views and instead opt to vote for a candidate who is aligned with a major party. If people were dissatisfied with a Democrat, for example, they could elect a libertarian -- nobody is stopping them from doing so except their own idiocy.

So you feel that (for example) the heiress Paris Hilton is more informed because she inherited her money than me, w/ a MA in History because I'm only making $30K/year and supporting a family?

God... how'd you get so dumb?

Of course not. I simply believe that it should be restricted to those who are capable of making informed decisions.

In other words, an oligarchy.

So you feel that (for example) the heiress Paris Hilton is more informed because she inherited her money than me, w/ a MA in History because I'm only making $30K/year and supporting a family?

Hey! I made that point! :p

Seems like it, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

And now at last we agree.

El Oh El

Of course not. I simply believe that it should be restricted to those who are capable of making informed decisions.

isnt it already?

those with intellectual disabilities, children etc?

what you are arguing is to disenfranchise those who disagree with you. thats textbook fascism mate.

Aha! Thus proving your argument to be based on complete bullshit, you complete cretin. If votes=intelligence (as you claimed) and liberal's intelligence=conservative's intelligence, then liberals and conservatives should have the same amount of votes.

That's not what I said at all. There are many intelligent conservatives, but their votes would be outweighed by intelligent and privileged liberals who are born into wealth and don't have to work a day in their life.

Hey! I made that point! :p

Seems like it, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Where do you think I got the idea? I never said I was original.

That's not what I said at all. There are many intelligent conservatives, but their votes would be outweighed by intelligent and privileged liberals who are born into wealth and don't have to work a day in their life.

All rich conservatives are hard workers?



You are becoming confused.

God... how'd you get so dumb?

I blame the liberal professors at my University.

I blame the liberal professors at my University.

They filled your head with naughtiness about Gays, didn't they?

Of course not. I simply believe that it should be restricted to those who are capable of making informed decisions.

The definition of democracy is that all people have the right to say how they choose to be governed. What you are describing is essentially an oligarchy...more accurately a plutocracy.

you cannot have an oligarchic democracy, nor a plutocratic democracy. They are mutually exclusive and deny eachothers existance.
So, as I said before. You hate democracy.

But perhaps that is unfair of me to state. You don't "hate" democracy, perse. You just fear it.

That's not what I said at all. There are many intelligent conservatives, but their votes would be outweighed by intelligent and privileged liberals who are born into wealth and don't have to work a day in their life.

Which would be enhanced by your program. How can they be intelligent and not rich by your previous arguments? If they're not rich, then they must be lazy and stupid and should be slaves, then they wouldn't get to vote anyway.

All rich conservatives are hard workers?



You are becoming confused.

I never said that all of them were. I simply stated that there are a multitude of spoiled liberal brats who were born into wealth and didn't have to work a day in their lives. They may also be intelligent. There are less intelligent conservatives who haven't worked at all to get to where they are today.

I never said that all of them were. I simply stated that there are a multitude of spoiled liberal brats who were born into wealth and didn't have to work a day in their lives. They may also be intelligent. There are less intelligent conservatives who haven't worked at all to get to where they are today.

So why should they have more of a vote than myself?

I never said that all of them were. I simply stated that there are a multitude of spoiled liberal brats who were born into wealth and didn't have to work a day in their lives. They may also be intelligent. There are less intelligent conservatives who haven't worked at all to get to where they are today.

I don't believe you. I don't think you have anything to back that up, either. In fact... I think I can count on one hand the amount of sources you are able to scrounge up for anything you have said.

That's not what I said at all. There are many intelligent conservatives, but their votes would be outweighed by intelligent and privileged liberals who are born into wealth and don't have to work a day in their life.

Don't try and wriggle out of it. You said:

I want educated people to have a say in government; however, allowing anyone, no matter how stupid or uninformed, to vote would have disastrous consequences.

In other words, only the intelligent should be able to vote...

Conservatives are just as smart as liberals

And that conservatives and liberals have the same intelligence.

Thus, one man, liberal or conservative, one vote. By your logic.

I never said that all of them were. I simply stated that there are a multitude of spoiled liberal brats who were born into wealth and didn't have to work a day in their lives. They may also be intelligent. There are less intelligent conservatives who haven't worked at all to get to where they are today.

please provide verfied statistical analysis that shows average income of liberals and conservatives and compares average inheritance of each group.

That's not what I said at all. There are many intelligent conservatives, but their votes would be outweighed by intelligent and privileged liberals who are born into wealth and don't have to work a day in their life.

Who are, in turn, outweighed by privileged conservatives of varying intelligence who are born into wealth and don't have to work a day in their lives. Some choose to, just as some liberals choose to work, but every job they have is given to them by rich parents or rich associates.

Unless your argument is "All intelligent conservatives are rich, hard-working, industrious people and all liberals are privileged heirs to fortunes earned by upstanding conservatives." If that's your argument, I've been wasting my time debating with you because your opinion is so far out of the mainstream and out of all logical reality that it doesn't even make sense to drunks.

How can they be intelligent and not rich by your previous arguments?

What ridiculous idea are you now espousing? Wealth does not magically materialize in front of those who are intelligent -- they have to work for it. However, wealth can also be inherited regardless of intelligence. If some idiot gets an inheritance of $1 billion dollars, he'll still be richer than a smart conservative who invested intelligently and has $100,000,000 dollars.

Don't try and wriggle out of it.

If voting ability were based solely on intelligence, there would be an equal amount of power between liberals and conservatives. However, that is not what I am advocating. I believe that political power should also be derived from the amount of wealth one possesses. Please, try to keep up.

What ridiculous idea are you now espousing? Wealth does not magically materialize in front of those who are intelligent -- they have to work for it. However, wealth can also be inherited regardless of intelligence. If some idiot gets an inheritance of $1 billion dollars, he'll still be richer than a smart conservative who invested intelligently and has $100,000,000 dollars.

So why the fuck did you argue for "one dollar, one vote" as a way of assessing intelligence and reasoning in your OP?

EDIT:
If voting ability were based solely on intelligence, there would be an equal amount of power between liberals and conservatives. However, that is not what I am advocating. I believe that political power should also be derived from the amount of wealth one possesses. Please, try to keep up.

See above.

Unless your argument is "All intelligent conservatives are rich, hard-working, industrious people and all liberals are privileged heirs to fortunes earned by upstanding conservatives."

No, my argument is that "more intelligent conservatives are rich, hard-working, industrious people than their equally-intelligent liberal counterparts."

Well it looks like the good people of NS have won this battle of wits against such an unarmed puppet.

NS-253 MTAE-0

What ridiculous idea are you now espousing? Wealth does not magically materialize in front of those who are intelligent -- they have to work for it. However, wealth can also be inherited regardless of intelligence. If some idiot gets an inheritance of $1 billion dollars, he'll still be richer than a smart conservative who invested intelligently and has $100,000,000 dollars.

I'm espousing your ideas.

So why should that idiot w/ $1B have 10X the voting power of the smart person? Just because they have more money? That is what you're espousing.

So why the fuck did you argue for "one dollar, one vote" as a way of assessing intelligence and reasoning in your OP?

No, no, you have it all wrong. I stated that as a preliminary filtration measures, the ignorant would be removed from the voting process. After that, everybody's vote would be proportional to their wealth. I never claimed that intelligence could be assessed by how much wealth someone possesses -- please, freshen up your reading comprehension skills.

No, my argument is that "more intelligent conservatives are rich, hard-working, industrious people than their equally-intelligent liberal counterparts."

Source it.

So why should that idiot w/ $1B have 10X the voting power of the smart person? Just because they have more money? That is what you're espousing.

Exactly. The person with $1 billion dollars has much more of a stake in the success of the government than a poorer person, and thus he should have more of a say in how the government is run. However, there is an exception: namely, if that rich person is ignorant, he must be extracted from the election process because his views are inadequately supported.

Source it.

I just extrapolated from the real-life facts with which I am presented at a particular college where rich, pot-smoking liberals are advocating communism and the like despite their gross lack of knowledge of the viability of such a system.

If voting ability were based solely on intelligence, there would be an equal amount of power between liberals and conservatives. However, that is not what I am advocating. I believe that political power should also be derived from the amount of wealth one possesses. Please, try to keep up.

is wealth your only barometer of success as a human being?

do you mind me asking what your pile is worth?

No, no, you have it all wrong. I stated that as a preliminary filtration measures, the ignorant would be removed from the voting process. After that, everybody's vote would be proportional to their wealth.
No, you bloody well didn't.

I never claimed that intelligence could be assessed by how much wealth someone possesses
yes you did. You said only the intelligent should be enfranchised and then suggested one dollar one vote. And not the bullshit you just made up above.

please, freshen up your reading comprehension skills.
That's just lame.

Exactly. The person with $1 billion dollars has much more of a stake in the success of the government than a poorer person, and thus he should have more of a say in how the government is run. However, there is an exception: namely, if that rich person is ignorant, he must be extracted from the election process because his views are inadequately supported.

Food, shelter, fresh water, clothing. That is what the poorest of people have at stake. The richest five percent have to decide whether to spring for that Ferrari, this year or next.

Exactly. The person with $1 billion dollars has much more of a stake in the success of the government than a poorer person, and thus he should have more of a say in how the government is run. However, there is an exception: namely, if that rich person is ignorant, he must be extracted from the election process because his views are inadequately supported.

Yet you never defined "ignorant". How are you going to guarantee that the rich idiot doesn't just buy there test scores? What would happen to that persons money? Would it be redistributed to someone else?

do you mind me asking what your pile is worth?

There is no way to certify whether I am being truthful in my answer. Therefore, I will not reply to your question.

I just extrapolated from the real-life facts with which I am presented at a particular college where rich, pot-smoking liberals are advocating communism and the like despite their gross lack of knowledge of the viability of such a system.

Uh-oh, my straw-man sense is tingling...again.

yes you did. You said only the intelligent should be enfranchised and then suggested one dollar one vote. And not the bullshit you just made up above.

When did I say that wealth is an accurate indicator of intelligence? Please cite that alleged quote to back up your assertions.

No, my argument is that "more intelligent conservatives are rich, hard-working, industrious people than their equally-intelligent liberal counterparts."

No, your argument is that poor stupid people don't deserve a vote. Wealthy, intelligent people deserve the most votes. Poor, but intelligent people get to vote, but they don't count as much as rich, stupid people. Ergo, we get this hierarchy.

Wealthy/Intelligent
Wealthy/Stupid
Poor/Intelligent
Poor/Stupid

Now, lets say we distribute 100 votes among these 4 groups
W/I:50
W/S:30
P/I:20
P/S:0


That is a cross between an oligarchy and plutocracy. And the reasoning it is not, in any way, a democracy is because of the inability of the poor and uneducated to voice their opinions.

I just extrapolated from the real-life facts with which I am presented at a particular college where rich, pot-smoking liberals are advocating communism and the like despite their gross lack of knowledge of the viability of such a system.

Translation: I just made this nonsense up as I went along.

Uh-oh, my straw-man sense is tingling...again.

Whatever. That entire line of conversation is tangent to the topic at hand. I did not resort to such extrapolations in my original post, but only did so when pressed as to the meaning of a certain comment.

Whatever. That entire line of conversation is tangent to the topic at hand. I did not resort to such extrapolations in my original post, but only did so when pressed as to the meaning of a certain comment.

Which means you met some rich kid you didn't like and "extrapolated" enough BS to fertilize a field.

Translation: I just made this nonsense up as I went along.

I don't know what it was like at whichever college you went to, but here, there is a preponderance of liberals who have inherited wealth and are completely ignorant in their political philosophy here.

Which means you met some rich kid you didn't like and "extrapolated" enough BS to fertilize a field.

That's funny. :)

There is no way to certify whether I am being truthful in my answer. Therefore, I will not reply to your question.

with respect, thats a cop out.

as you say, its easy to become a millionaire in the US, and you lecture those who arent. Are you?

Now I dont give a shit how much you are worth and it wont change my opinion of you one bit, but if the cap fits mate.

I repeat my question. If its that easy to be a millionaire, are you?

When did I say that wealth is an accurate indicator of intelligence? Please cite that alleged quote to back up your assertions.

Here. Your OP.
For too long have the uneducated masses been able to exert their uninformed opinions upon the political landscape in this country.

ns like shareholders run a company -- those who have the most money invested Instead of the current "one person, one vote" philosophy, we should institute a "one dollar, one vote" philosophy.

Whatever. That entire line of conversation is tangent to the topic at hand. I did not resort to such extrapolations in my original post, but only did so when pressed as to the meaning of a certain comment.

As was mine. I was just pointing out that your argument was a straw man argument, and thus extremely poor.

I don't know what it was like at whichever college you went to, but here, there is a preponderance of liberals who have inherited wealth and are completely ignorant in their political philosophy here.

As opposed to someone who is ignorant that one specific, controlled, and limited population (such as that of a college campus) is not representative of the whole of a nation?

I repeat my question. If its that easy to be a millionaire, are you?

I could easily say "yes," and it would be impossible for you to verify whether I was being truthful or lying. Replying to your query in the negative would somewhat impair my argument. Thus, I have no reason whatsoever to say "no." The only answer which you would logically receive would be "yes," but since a rational person would realize that this was the only possible answer that would be given, no information would be gained from such a question. Therefore, your question is pointless and I shall not answer it.

I don't know what it was like at whichever college you went to, but here, there is a preponderance of liberals who have inherited wealth and are completely ignorant in their political philosophy here.

So present a source to back this up. The plural of anectdote is not data.

Here. Your OP.

Yes, I said that the ignorant should not be able to vote and that the amount of votes should be proportional to the amount of wealth. Nowhere did I say that all rich people are smart -- Paris Hilton is an obvious exception.

Im so sick of this crap!!! He only created this thread to get attention, DON'T POST ON IT!! I made the mistake in getting into an arguement that went on for more than 20 PAGES. 20 PAGES! Don't make my mistake. DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

As was mine. I was just pointing out that your argument was a straw man argument, and thus extremely poor.

Indeed -- I realize that. I also have no facts to back up my assertions, which is why I did not voice them in my original post. However, I only relied on those assumptions to defend myself against an attack against someone who thought he had found a logical error in my post. Thus, a straw man defense against a claim of an incorrect statement would not be a logical fallacy.

Im so sick of this crap!!! He only created this thread to get attention, DON'T POST ON IT!! I made the mistake in getting into an arguement that went on for more than 20 PAGES. 20 PAGES! Don't make my mistake. DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

God forbid that we should actually debate political issues on this forum instead of resorting to liberal group-think!

Yes, I said that the ignorant should not be able to vote and that the amount of votes should be proportional to the amount of wealth. Nowhere did I say that all rich people are smart -- Paris Hilton is an obvious exception.

Proving my point. You want only intelligent people to vote. You use money as a qualification to do so. Thus, you use money to assess intelligence.

Proving my point. You want only intelligent people to vote. You use money as a qualification to do so. Thus, you use money to assess intelligence.

No, I said that a political aptitude test would be given to ensure that all those who are ignorant cannot vote. This is the method by which the "stupid" people are weeded out -- not by money.

Indeed -- I realize that. I also have no facts to back up my assertions, which is why I did not voice them in my original post. However, I only relied on those assumptions to defend myself against an attack against someone who thought he had found a logical error in my post. Thus, a straw man defense against a claim of an incorrect statement would not be a logical fallacy.

Bingo. And yes, your straw man argument based on "t3h evil college liberals" is just as shit as it was then.

God forbid that we should actually debate political issues on this forum instead of resorting to liberal group-think!

God forbid you don't post ignorant ideas on the Forums and not attempt to back them up with racist conservative ideals!

No, I said that a political aptitude test would be given to ensure that all those who are ignorant cannot vote. This is the method by which the "stupid" people are weeded out -- not by money.

So, you didn't mention "one dollar one vote" as another qualification at all.

Indeed -- I realize that. I also have no facts to back up my assertions, which is why I did not voice them in my original post. However, I only relied on those assumptions to defend myself against an attack against someone who thought he had found a logical error in my post. Thus, a straw man defense against a claim of an incorrect statement would not be a logical fallacy.

So you admit you just made it up. Good.

For too long have the uneducated masses been able to exert their uninformed opinions upon the political landscape in this country. They have little appreciation for the true issues at play and instead vote based on their own narrow, artless view of the world. In this global age, we cannot allow that trend to persist lest we be inundated with a sea of inane ideas which are supported by the ignorant majority. If left unchecked, our economy will collapse, our global standing will deteriorate, and our protection from terrorism will be rendered null and void. We must impose restrictions upon those who vote to eliminate undesirables who know next to nothing of politics and vote on blind, unquestioning party allegiance. We must develop a political aptitude test which must be passed by all potential voters prior to allowing them to endorse their candidate. It will not be an IQ test, of course (as that would most likely lead to liberal elitists ruling the country, despite their idiotic and arrogant opinions), but rather a gauge of how well informed one is of the political situation in the US and the world. Through this method, only those who know a thing or two about the candidates, their platforms, basic cause and effect, etc., can vote. There is, however, a more ominous problem which threatens to destroy the foundation of America from within.

That is, the poor have the right to vote, even though they have an insufficient stake in government. They could care less how economically viable the US is because their primary concern is acquiring more money for themselves. Now, the framers were onto something when the wrote the Constitution and assorted state documents -- back then, only the wealthy could vote. Because of that policy, the US was able to expand economically by putting national success over the petty concerns of the poor. Certainly, I do not want society to not represent the interests of the poor at all. However, there is nothing stopping the poor from electing a candidate who wishes to forcibly redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. In fact, if there are enough poor and middle-class people who are in favor of such an idea, it could be passed into law, dealing a death blow to our economy. If everybody had an equal say in the way government was run and followed their own self-interest, legislation would have already been passed ruining the rich and the entire economy to benefit the poor -- laws would have been enacted allowing the state to steal money from the rich and bequeath it to the poor. Such ghastly consequences must be avoided at all costs. Thus, I propose we run US elections like shareholders run a company -- those who have the most money invested in the US have the biggest say. Instead of the current "one person, one vote" philosophy, we should institute a "one dollar, one vote" philosophy. A policy such as this could be somewhat likened to "privatization," which has shown across-the-board successes wherever it was instituted. Why not apply it to voting? Such reforms are necessary to ensure a better future for the US.

Okay, this is Jim Crow all over again. Depending on who writes the test, it can be biased one way or the other, disallowing one group from being able to vote. Really, MTAE, you're just not trying anymore.

And rreally, the uneducated masses are the only reason why Bush, your messiah, is in office.

So really, go under your bridge and think of something better than trying to revive Jim Crow.

God forbid that we should actually debate political issues on this forum instead of resorting to liberal group-think!

Debating with you is pointless, since you refuse to admit when you're wrong. Thus the entire thread becomes just a personal sounding board for you to rant about "pot smoking liberals" in every other post. Bigotry is not debate.

But since you and I both know you're here just to get attention you apparently don't get elsewhere, you'll ignore this post too. Good on you. :)

Proving my point. You want only intelligent people to vote. You use money as a qualification to do so. Thus, you use money to assess intelligence.
eh...not exactly what he is arguing. He's arguing that in order to get the right to vote, you must meet a base line requirement. That is the intelligence factor of the equation.

From there, the money comes into play. He argues that the wealthy are more invested in where this country goes, and therefore deserve more say in what course we take.

The intelligence determines the right to vote. The wealth determines how much that vote counts.

Yes, I said that the ignorant should not be able to vote and that the amount of votes should be proportional to the amount of wealth. Nowhere did I say that all rich people are smart -- Paris Hilton is an obvious exception.

here, the gitl got a million dollars to attend a night club opening.

dismiss her at your peril.

same with that simpson one who did the reality tv show with her hubby a few years ago. member of mensa who played a blinder.

socratic irony is the expression

God forbid you don't post ignorant ideas on the Forums and not attempt to back them up with racist conservative ideals!

I take offense to the insinuation that I am racist -- I most decidedly am not. It's not my fault that the terrorists who are killing Americans happen to be Arab; I didn't make it that way.

No, I said that a political aptitude test would be given to ensure that all those who are ignorant cannot vote. This is the method by which the "stupid" people are weeded out -- not by money.

But in your orginal post you stated that the poor shouldn't be able to vote.

So you made claims without any actual factual basis for them.

Check. Gotcha. Troll.

Okay, this is Jim Crow all over again.

Jim Crow? How did blacks get dragged into this topic?

But in your orginal post you stated that the poor shouldn't be able to vote.

No, I did not. Please do not fabricate facts.

because the orginal jim crow laws forced anyone who wanted to vote to get a political apitude test but at the same time segregated blacks to indecent and illequiped school buildings.

Jim Crow? How did blacks get dragged into this topic?Jim Crow laws included intelligence/education/background tests that were (at the time) designed to keep blacks from voting. Just like a test to determine if someone is "politically aware" would be designed to keep other "undesirables" out. Same thing.

So you made claims without any actual factual basis for them.

Check. Gotcha. Troll.

You don't seem to get it, do you? Here, let me give you another example.

Person A: not all prime numbers are odd.
Person B: yes they are!
Person A: actually, 2 is both a prime and even, thus disproving your statement.
Person B: sure, but 2 is an isolated incident. Can you name another prime that is even? No? Well, then I'm right!

I cited one example of where there was an intelligent liberal majority who were utterly clueless -- this is not necessarily true of everybody, but it is a counter-example to the assertion that liberals and conservatives are equal.

We must impose restrictions upon those who vote to eliminate undesirables who know next to nothing of politics and vote on blind, unquestioning party allegiance.
Why should you care? In an earlier thread you stated that you do NOT vote and that it is a waste of time.

Because you willing disenfranchise yourself, why should others be denied the democratic right?

Jim Crow? How did blacks get dragged into this topic?

Jim Crow-esque then. After Blacks were given freedom and the right the vote, the states that didn't want black people to vote created tests that one would need to vote-and most of the time, the test were biased in such a way as to have almost every single black person who attempted fail, for some reason or another.

The same principle would be used by those who write the tests to ensure that whichever idea they support is brought to the ballots with "loaded" polling. It's not necessarily just black people, but any group of people whom those who write the test disagree with.

Why should you care? In an earlier thread you stated that you do NOT vote and that it is a waste of time.

Because you willing disenfranchise yourself, why should others be denied the democratic right?

Holy shit... is that true? Why do we bother with this guy?

Holy shit... is that true? Why do we bother with this guy?


He's an "old friend", so to speak. Kind of like Magneto(Him) to our Xavier. Only far less sensical.

F
That is, the poor have the right to vote, even though they have an insufficient stake in government. They could care less how economically viable the US is because their primary concern is acquiring more money for themselves. Now, the framers were onto something when the wrote the Constitution and assorted state documents -- back then, only the wealthy could vote. Because of that policy, the US was able to expand economically by putting national success over the petty concerns of the poor. Certainly, I do not want society to not represent the interests of the poor at all. However, there is nothing stopping the poor from electing a candidate who wishes to forcibly redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. In fact, if there are enough poor and middle-class people who are in favor of such an idea, it could be passed into law, dealing a death blow to our economy. If everybody had an equal say in the way government was run and followed their own self-interest, legislation would have already been passed ruining the rich and the entire economy to benefit the poor -- laws would have been enacted allowing the state to steal money from the rich and bequeath it to the poor. Such ghastly consequences must be avoided at all costs. Thus, I propose we run US elections like shareholders run a company -- those who have the most money invested in the US have the biggest say. Instead of the current "one person, one vote" philosophy, we should institute a "one dollar, one vote" philosophy. A policy such as this could be somewhat likened to "privatization," which has shown across-the-board successes wherever it was instituted. Why not apply it to voting? Such reforms are necessary to ensure a better future for the US.

Right there at the begining of the paragraph seems to say that the poor shouldn't vote.

He's an "old friend", so to speak. Kind of like Magneto(Him) to our Xavier. Only far less sensical.

If MeanstoanEnd could bend metal with his mind... I'd be much more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in most cases. Unfair? Yes. But I want to be friends with people who can do that.

*waits*




...



...



...um....






Where's the punchline? :confused:
Ummmm.....





ummmm......





here:

http://cdn-78.cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users9/traaanette/default/P-p-punchline--feat-msg-1129510499-2.jpg

I cited one example of where there was an intelligent liberal majority who were utterly clueless -- this is not necessarily true of everybody, but it is a counter-example to the assertion that liberals and conservatives are equal.

Lesse here, in one post you have already stated that you could easily lie to "prove" your point, yet to validate your statement you expect us to...believe you.

Holy shit... is that true? Why do we bother with this guy?
He truly said that. I just can't be bothered looking it up. It was quite awhile ago.

Yeah, why bother feeding the troll?

Lesse here, in one post you have already stated that you could easily lie to "prove" your point, yet to validate your statement you expect us to...believe you.

After admitting all his "facts" are based on assumptions.

With my skills, experience and qualifications, I could get a high-paying job in the IT industry.

But I CHOOSE to work as a teacher instead, because I consider my happiness and job satisfaction to be a higher priority than money.

I also think taht I have as much right to vote as anyone else, and that my vote should be equal to those who CHOOSE to work higher-paid jobs.

I also have a higher stake in politics than people with higher-paying jobs, because as a teacher, I'm Government employee and my funding/conditions are entirely dependent on who is in power.

So why should someone who earns more have more of a say in who runs the country?

Yeah, why bother feeding the troll?

because its fun, and lets face it, guilt free bullying.

lets wedgy the weird kid :p

because its fun, and lets face it, guilt free bullying.

lets wedgy the weird kid :p

*Wedgies SR* :D

*Wedgies SR* :D

listen son, Im a 6'2, 15 stone, skinhead football hooligan type. Want a shot at the title, do you? :p

the sr is a wedgie free zone....

:D

You seem to think that I am posting these topics for my own amusements. I am not. I am trying to point out some grave injustices in our society which threaten to destroy our country, and my attempts are undermined by your frequent, trollish comments. Please, abstain from spamming and debate the matter at hand.
Why? I've tried debating you in the past. It doesn't work. You don't listen, you don't adress my points (nor your own), you never back up any statements or "facts", and you ignore the debate in general. No, I'm done with you. And I give your threads what they deserve: A little fun and a touch of spam.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/signs138.gif

http://www.feuerwher.de/forum/troll.jpg

I am bored.

I am bored.

I dare you to lick the very next thing that you touch.

Your reasoning MTAE is based on the presumption that the nation should take precedence over the individual. This disadvantages the rich as much as it does the poor. I will admit that I have no love for the poor, but this neglects a fact -- that they, and to a huge extent the middle classes, are suppliers of labour. The rich definitely are important (with particular regard to the rich who work and invest, not rich brats living off mommy and daddy's funds), but this should be restricted to the economic sphere.

What one ought to be reflecting upon is what should be subject to democratic procedures: the rights of individuals (be they negatively or positively stated, and in these I include property and the right-to-secession if the nation is minarchist) should be inalienable, and the economic system should only be changeable via absolute majorities. Measures pertaining to pursuing the economy's objectives and various other issues (e.g. going to war) could be subject to normal majoritarian democratic debate. Therefore, the masses are limited in their powers. No restrictions on who can vote are necessary.

If you feel that strongly about it, take action. Leave immediately. I hear Iran is willing to pay for Americans.


bet Iran pays double to send him back :p


Means you have got to be high when you come up with this stuff. Its great and its over the top nuts..and really makes me wonder how you can type with a straight jacket on.

But I'll give you props , you make insane thoughts sound almost worth pondering .

Good stuff keep at it .

For too long have the uneducated masses been able to exert their uninformed opinions upon the political landscape in this country. They have little appreciation for the true issues at play and instead vote based on their own narrow, artless view of the world. In this global age, we cannot allow that trend to persist lest we be inundated with a sea of inane ideas which are supported by the ignorant majority. If left unchecked, our economy will collapse, our global standing will deteriorate, and our protection from terrorism will be rendered null and void. We must impose restrictions upon those who vote to eliminate undesirables who know next to nothing of politics and vote on blind, unquestioning party allegiance. We must develop a political aptitude test which must be passed by all potential voters prior to allowing them to endorse their candidate. It will not be an IQ test, of course (as that would most likely lead to liberal elitists ruling the country, despite their idiotic and arrogant opinions), but rather a gauge of how well informed one is of the political situation in the US and the world. Through this method, only those who know a thing or two about the candidates, their platforms, basic cause and effect, etc., can vote. There is, however, a more ominous problem which threatens to destroy the foundation of America from within.

That is, the poor have the right to vote, even though they have an insufficient stake in government. They could care less how economically viable the US is because their primary concern is acquiring more money for themselves. Now, the framers were onto something when the wrote the Constitution and assorted state documents -- back then, only the wealthy could vote. Because of that policy, the US was able to expand economically by putting national success over the petty concerns of the poor. Certainly, I do not want society to not represent the interests of the poor at all. However, there is nothing stopping the poor from electing a candidate who wishes to forcibly redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. In fact, if there are enough poor and middle-class people who are in favor of such an idea, it could be passed into law, dealing a death blow to our economy. If everybody had an equal say in the way government was run and followed their own self-interest, legislation would have already been passed ruining the rich and the entire economy to benefit the poor -- laws would have been enacted allowing the state to steal money from the rich and bequeath it to the poor. Such ghastly consequences must be avoided at all costs. Thus, I propose we run US elections like shareholders run a company -- those who have the most money invested in the US have the biggest say. Instead of the current "one person, one vote" philosophy, we should institute a "one dollar, one vote" philosophy. A policy such as this could be somewhat likened to "privatization," which has shown across-the-board successes wherever it was instituted. Why not apply it to voting? Such reforms are necessary to ensure a better future for the US.

Simply, answer me this, who was the last President who wasn't rich?

Simply, answer me this, who was the last President who wasn't rich?

Relative to whom ?

No votes for you, then, eh?

Relative to whom ?

The majority of Americans would be a good benchmark, probably.

In a ironic twist of fate, MeanstoanEnd is dubbed "to freaking nuts" to vote.

In a ironic twist of fate, MeanstoanEnd is dubbed "to freaking nuts" to vote.





:p :D

In a ironic twist of fate, MeanstoanEnd is dubbed "to freaking nuts" to vote.
Seeing as he also reckons that you can make a million dollars in your lifetime comfortably on some ludicrously low sum, and this amount'll be worth the same million dollars as when you started, MTAE will be destined to a life of poverty, and hence he shall never vote.

Oh cruel fate, you are sometimes so beautiful.

:p :D

Thankyouverymuch, I'm here 'till Saturday!

I like the funny little troll. He makes me laugh. Can we keep him, ma?

This is much too complicated.

I propose to all Americans: Make MTAE to a lifetime dictator. You would have much to laugh with his ideas. (As long as you are not his personal slave, though.) And MTAE would be happy, too.

Well, at least we in Europe would have something to laugh about the ISA (Insane States of America). ;)

I refuse to support any system that would give Hitler more votes then Gandhi.
Which this probably would, unless Gandhi had some secret stash of money that nobody ever told me about.
So you phail.
You do have to remember that the only way to edit a democracy that makes any sense at all is intelligence.
Which you yourself admit would move the country very far to the left.
Good bit of trolling, though.

OOOO!!! OOO!!! When he's dictator, I got dibs on being the first to use him as my puppet!

I want educated people to have a say in government; however, allowing anyone, no matter how stupid or uninformed, to vote would have disastrous consequences. Nonetheless, a dictatorship is no better.

So, you want to have no say in the government? Okay by me, I'll vote then - because, you know, I'm smarter than you.

So, you want to have no say in the government? Okay by me, I'll vote then - because, you know, I'm smarter than you.
Enough of your liberal intellect!

Get ye to the poor house!

Dude, you have way too much time on your hands.

In a ironic twist of fate, MeanstoanEnd is dubbed "to freaking nuts" to vote.
No need for that. He has already disenfranchised himself. He stated in another thread that he does NOT vote, and that he doesn't see the point in going to vote. :D

Simply, answer me this, who was the last President who wasn't rich?

Simply answer me this: who was the last president who wasn't intelligent or sly? Both those characteristics tend to allow people to acquire high-paying jobs. There is a strong correlation between being smart and being rich, as is evidenced by the fact that most US presidents have been quite affluent. And yes, Bush is smart even though he doesn't have an adequate grasp of the intricacies of grammar. He's more of the math type.

No need for that. He has already disenfranchised himself. He stated in another thread that he does NOT vote, and that he doesn't see the point in going to vote. :D

He doesn't see the point of voting with the masses. When he makes enough money, he plans on buying them like a decent citizen of wealth should.

No need for that. He has already disenfranchised himself. He stated in another thread that he does NOT vote, and that he doesn't see the point in going to vote. :D

Well, is there any point in going to vote? It's mathematically inconsequential, and I am not going to waste good time by casting my vote when it will make no difference. It's like the good old prisoner's dilemma.

Simply answer me this: who was the last president who wasn't intelligent or sly? Both those characteristics tend to allow people to acquire high-paying jobs. There is a strong correlation between being smart and being rich, as is evidenced by the fact that most US presidents have been quite affluent. And yes, Bush is smart even though he doesn't have an adequate grasp of the intricacies of grammar. He's more of the math type.

Well, he certainly knows how to add if the National Debt is anything to go by.

He doesn't see the point of voting with the masses. When he makes enough money, he plans on buying them like a decent citizen of wealth should.

Well, if would be a decent thing to do if you treated your slaves humanely so that they would be entitled an elevated standard of living. Unfortunately, we have outlawed slavery.

Well, if would be a decent thing to do if you treated your slaves humanely so that they would be entitled an elevated standard of living. Unfortunately, we have outlawed slavery.

I was talking about buying votes...

but thanks for that further glimpse into your depraved mind.

Well, he certainly knows how to add if the National Debt is anything to go by.

We are at war -- he considers money a second interest to American lives, which is why he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows how many more people would have died if he was not so decisive and resolute? He knows how to add the amount of lives he saved together, even if other people don't.

I was talking about buying votes...

Oh, oops, I thought you were talking about buying the masses. That's embarrassing.

We are at war -- he considers money a second interest to American lives, which is why he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows how many more people would have died if he was not so decisive and resolute? He knows how to add the amount of lives he saved together, even if other people don't.
Holy fuck...

Oh, oops, I thought you were talking about buying the masses. That's embarrassing.

Holy Fuck 2...

Holy fuck...

What? Have you realized that if it had not been for Bush, the terrorists might have killed you? Shocking, I know. To think we owe so much to a man whom we praise so little.

What? Have you realized that if it had not been for Bush, the terrorists might have killed you? Shocking, I know. To think we owe so much to a man whom we praise so little.

Wow, and yet Iraq had nothing at all to do with Terrorism.

Hell, I feel less safe since the Iraq war started. I agreed whole-heartedly with Afghanistan, but Iraq was a miserable waste of time, resources, and lives.

Also, I wouldn't be afraid of terrorists to begin with. If we allow ourselves to become afraid of them, we have lost. That is their tactic, that is their means to the end they wish, and it is apparent that people like you are allowing them to win.

What? Have you realized that if it had not been for Bush, the terrorists might have killed you? Shocking, I know. To think we owe so much to a man whom we praise so little.

Hi. I'm an article. I serve the purpose of informing. I am used by people on sites such as NationStates to promote intelligent debate. Sometimes somebody has a point of view and another challenges that point of view. They call for a "source". Sources come in many different varieties but the most common by far can be found in articles. A likely place to find an article is in a "Newspaper" or on the "World Wide Web". You can see an example of me by clicking on me. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-09/2006-09-24-voa2.cfm?CFID=13329421&CFTOKEN=56411177

I want educated people to have a say in government; however, allowing anyone, no matter how stupid or uninformed, to vote would have disastrous consequences. Nonetheless, a dictatorship is no better.
The uneducated already can vote... you're a shining example.

You really need to get a boy/girlfriend...

Or maybe a puppy...I'm just scared of what you would do to it...("Well, puppy, when the masses have decided to..." *Dog picks up knife in teeth and stabs itself repeatedly* "then we must...")

The uneducated already can vote... you're a shining example.
You may call him insane, but he definitely does not seem uneducated.

It would seem that the average poster in this thread is merely instinctively lashing out at the thread-starter's proposal based on an instinctive mistrust of anything that isn't blind Universal Egalitarianism.

The thread-starter makes a good point, though I am not entirely convinced of what he proposes: No one who has assaulted his plan however has done anything to help their own cause, quite frankly.

You may call him insane, but he definitely does not seem uneducated.
Just because you're not smart doesn't mean you're not a dumbass, and vice-versa.

Not referring to anyone in particular right now... I'm just saying, in general...

It would seem that the average poster in this thread is merely instinctively lashing out at the thread-starter's proposal based on an instinctive mistrust of anything that isn't blind Universal Egalitarianism.

The thread-starter makes a good point, though I am not entirely convinced of what he proposes: No one who has assaulted his plan however has done anything to help their own cause, quite frankly.
Agreed.

Just because you're not smart doesn't mean you're not a dumbass, and vice-versa.

Not referring to anyone in particular right now... I'm just saying, in general...
Is there any point to this superfluous commentary? Until the OP actually shows signs of being either uneducated or stupid I am not inclined to referring to him as such. His sanity and morality is another issue entirely.

Or maybe a puppy...

I did have one, but it died. I now post on NationStates. :)

Is there any point to this superfluous commentary? Until the OP actually shows signs of being either uneducated or stupid I am not inclined to referring to him as such. His sanity and morality is another issue entirely.

If this were another country without the long American tradition of distaste for nobility and oligarchy, I could agree. But all of his plans go against ingrained American predispositions; just look to the reactions of some of the posters here. Even attempting such changes in America today would be impossible, and the rest of his ideas equally so. It's stupid to think that Americans would willingly give up voting rights or allow slavery to be reinstated, yet he has suggested both as though they have a chance.

Let's not leave out the fallacious link between wealth and intelligence either. Such an assumption, especially as the base for many of his ideas, would need to be evidenced in order to at least be acknowledged as sound. If that assumption turns out to be incorrect, his entire structure crumbles. Since he never seems to use evidence in any of these diatribes, his assumptions are easily dismissed by his opponents.

If this were another country without the long American tradition of distaste for nobility and oligarchy, I could agree.
Thank God I am European.

But all of his plans go against ingrained American predispositions; just look to the reactions of some of the posters here. Even attempting such changes in America today would be impossible, and the rest of his ideas equally so. It's stupid to think that Americans would willingly give up voting rights or allow slavery to be reinstated, yet he has suggested both as though they have a chance.
That would make the ideas unpopular, or even unsavoury -- my point is that simply blabbering out "YOU'S STUPID" is simplistic.

Let's not leave out the fallacious link between wealth and intelligence either. Such an assumption, especially as the base for many of his ideas, would need to be evidenced in order to at least be acknowledged as sound. If that assumption turns out to be incorrect, his entire structure crumbles. Since he never seems to use evidence in any of these diatribes, his assumptions are easily dismissed by his opponents.
I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions of his ideas -- I am just amused at the silly attempts of most posters here to disprove them, and belittle him. He would do well to back his assumptions with proof of course.

I did have one, but it died. I now post on NationStates. :)

Then get another one for all our sakes

It's stupid to think that Americans would willingly give up voting rights or allow slavery to be reinstated, yet he has suggested both as though they have a chance.

My purpose is not to outline policies which are likely to be implemented in the future -- I am simply trying to establish which practices would be most beneficial to society, regardless of the practicality of getting such measures approved. What is objectively correct has no basis in what is construed as subjectively correct by a majority of people. I realize that my ideas are not at all likely to be put into effect, but I do expound upon them nonetheless.

Let's not leave out the fallacious link between wealth and intelligence either.

It is a proven fact that people who obtain a Ph.D. make, on average, more than those who simply graduated from high school. Also, there is a link between those who get their doctorate and intelligence. It is fairly well-established that the smarter you are, the greater the chance that you'll be successful. I am not suggesting that the converse is true, however, as wealth has nothing to do with intelligence.

For too long have the uneducated masses been able to exert their uninformed opinions upon the political landscape in this country. They have little appreciation for the true issues at play and instead vote based on their own narrow, artless view of the world. In this global age, we cannot allow that trend to persist lest we be inundated with a sea of inane ideas which are supported by the ignorant majority. If left unchecked, our economy will collapse, our global standing will deteriorate, and our protection from terrorism will be rendered null and void. We must impose restrictions upon those who vote to eliminate undesirables who know next to nothing of politics and vote on blind, unquestioning party allegiance.
How artlessly ironic that you speak so freely of yourself.


We must develop a political aptitude test which must be passed by all potential voters prior to allowing them to endorse their candidate. It will not be an IQ test, of course (as that would most likely lead to liberal elitists ruling the country,
Wow, you actually admitted you're stupid! A first!
You just owned yourself.

despite their idiotic and arrogant opinions),
That's a pretty idiotic and arrogant opinion if I've ever seen one.

but rather a gauge of how well informed one is of the political situation in the US and the world. Through this method, only those who know a thing or two about the candidates, their platforms, basic cause and effect, etc., can vote. There is, however, a more ominous problem which threatens to destroy the foundation of America from within.
Yes. People like you.

That is, the poor have the right to vote, even though they have an insufficient stake in government. They could care less how economically viable the US is because their primary concern is acquiring more money for themselves. Now, the framers were onto something when the wrote the Constitution and assorted state documents -- back then, only the wealthy could vote. Because of that policy, the US was able to expand economically by putting national success over the petty concerns of the poor. Certainly, I do not want society to not represent the interests of the poor at all. However, there is nothing stopping the poor from electing a candidate who wishes to forcibly redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. In fact, if there are enough poor and middle-class people who are in favor of such an idea, it could be passed into law, dealing a death blow to our economy. If everybody had an equal say in the way government was run and followed their own self-interest, legislation would have already been passed ruining the rich and the entire economy to benefit the poor -- laws would have been enacted allowing the state to steal money from the rich and bequeath it to the poor. Such ghastly consequences must be avoided at all costs. Thus, I propose we run US elections like shareholders run a company -- those who have the most money invested in the US have the biggest say. Instead of the current "one person, one vote" philosophy, we should institute a "one dollar, one vote" philosophy. A policy such as this could be somewhat likened to "privatization," which has shown across-the-board successes wherever it was instituted. Why not apply it to voting? Such reforms are necessary to ensure a better future for the US.
You said youself that wealth has nothing to do with intelligence. Therefore, your two proposals - vote power based on intelligence and vote power based on wealth - have nothing to do with each other, and cannot be implemented together.

It would seem that the average poster in this thread is merely instinctively lashing out at the thread-starter's proposal based on an instinctive mistrust of anything that isn't blind Universal Egalitarianism.

The thread-starter makes a good point, though I am not entirely convinced of what he proposes: No one who has assaulted his plan however has done anything to help their own cause, quite frankly.


no, the average poster has more than 7 posts and are fed up with his brand of fascistic racist right wing ramblings.

search the threads he started and for fucks sake

Okay, Europa, na gut as the Germans say.

So Means isn't stupid, just crazy. :p

But, very well. Sound arguments you wanted, sound arguments you shall have.

1- No "intelligence" test is unbiased unless it's an IQ test. Further, he doesn't want IQ tests because they benefit liberals, so it's quite clear that the democratic process matters nothing to him as long as his extremist views would get implemented.

2- A country that prevents a certain type of people from voting would soon prevent some others, until the criteria for voting would be "agreeing with the powers that be".

3- Wealth-based vote is an idea that was abandoned in the beginning of the 19th century and with good reason: It destabilizes the country, generates rightful anger among the masses and results in the (now COMPLETELY, thanks to Means' stupid-ass idea) disenfranchised masses revolting one beautiful day, destroying everything it their paths (not that I'd blame them) and installing an ACTUAL government.

That said...

Means, you're not a moron.

You're insane.

1- No "intelligence" test is unbiased unless it's an IQ test. Further, he doesn't want IQ tests because they benefit liberals, so it's quite clear that the democratic process matters nothing to him as long as his extremist views would get implemented.

Very intelligent people can be quite artless when it comes to politics -- I know several people who have a Ph.D. in specialized areas yet are completely clueless when it comes to more subjective topics such as politics. For this reason, the tests should only encompass political know-how and not fluid logic. Well-informed people need not be intelligent. Also, a test that verifies the knowledge of facts is quite un-biased.

2- A country that prevents a certain type of people from voting would soon prevent some others, until the criteria for voting would be "agreeing with the powers that be".

I'm sure you know that the slippery-slope argument is a fallacy. Please don't use it as a logical justification for your ideas.

3- Wealth-based vote is an idea that was abandoned in the beginning of the 19th century and with good reason: It destabilizes the country, generates rightful anger among the masses and results in the (now COMPLETELY, thanks to Means' stupid-ass idea) disenfranchised masses revolting one beautiful day, destroying everything it their paths (not that I'd blame them) and installing an ACTUAL government.

That means that the rich will have learned from their mistakes by now and will not completely disenfranchise the poor as it could lead to their own downfall. They would take measures to improve the national economy while not completely allowing the poor to be trampled-upon.

Very intelligent people can be quite artless when it comes to politics -- I know several people who have a Ph.D. in specialized areas yet are completely clueless when it comes to more subjective topics such as politics. For this reason, the tests should only encompass political know-how and not fluid logic. Well-informed people need not be intelligent. Also, a test that verifies the knowledge of facts is quite un-biased.

Try to make a totally unbiased test, then come talk to me. Plus, you yourself said "higher IQs would put libs in power" or crap to that effect.


I'm sure you know that the slippery-slope argument is a fallacy. Please don't use it as a logical justification for your ideas.

A fallacy is a fallacy when non-applicable. That means that, if I used the Aurhority argument with someone KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THAT FIELD as authority, it'd not be a fallacy. Conversely, slippery slope isn't a fallacy when a government that has the power to take the right to vote away from people decides to do so - it'd feel empowered enough for this.

That means that the rich will have learned from their mistakes by now and will not completely disenfranchise the poor as it could lead to their own downfall. They would take measures to improve the national economy while not completely allowing the poor to be trampled-upon.

And you plan on "not disenfranchising them" how when there'd be a law in place that:

a) Takes away their freedom to vote;

b) CLEARLY STATES they're not worthy of it;

and

c) Effectively makes them the state's pets?

Very intelligent people can be quite artless when it comes to politics -- I know several people who have a Ph.D. in specialized areas yet are completely clueless when it comes to more subjective topics such as politics. For this reason, the tests should only encompass political know-how and not fluid logic. Well-informed people need not be intelligent. Also, a test that verifies the knowledge of facts is quite un-biased.
If they're stupid, how are they well-informed?
Give me one political question that isn't somehow biased. Can you think of one?


I'm sure you know that the slippery-slope argument is a fallacy. Please don't use it as a logical justification for your ideas.
It ain't a fallacy if it's true. You eliminate one voter based on criteria, then you start eliminating other voters based on that criteria, until you're left with one "voting class" and one "non-voting class" - the Party and the subjects. It's already happening, even. In the 2000 elections, Jeb Bush cut hundreds of black voters off the federal voting list by branding them as "felons", which most of them weren't.


That means that the rich will have learned from their mistakes by now and will not completely disenfranchise the poor as it could lead to their own downfall. They would take measures to improve the national economy while not completely allowing the poor to be trampled-upon.
If so, why haven't they done it already?