Lucky... 0 #26 February 11, 2008 Quote Andy: I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But what I am saying is that there is some serious stuff that people are going for and just doing without any idea of it. I am careful with what I do. And I am concerned that people will vote for things that are not what they think they are. Exactly, when you vote to deprive poor people from medical care, it is well deliberated, I'm sure Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #27 February 11, 2008 Quote Quote Andy: I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But what I am saying is that there is some serious stuff that people are going for and just doing without any idea of it. I am careful with what I do. And I am concerned that people will vote for things that are not what they think they are. Exactly, when you vote to deprive poor people from medical care, it is well deliberated, I'm sure If I ever see a resolution to "deprive poor people of medical care", I promise to vote against it. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #28 February 11, 2008 Quote Third, who gets to officially define what level of being informed is... 1. This is the basic criteria not the entire. If you cant be bothered to learn to read, who can expect you to be bothered to become informed? 2. See 1. 3. This strawman always comes up.. it would require an amendment, something there is a very well defined process to doing. Since your entire argument is based on "how good our current system is over every other" why don't you trust it?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 February 12, 2008 QuoteQuote>The proponents of Proposition 91 were against it . . . Yes, I noticed that. At first I thought it was a pretty monumental typo until I got on line and checked it out. Strange. This was really screwy to me too. I love how in the voter information guide it says "Argument in favor of prop 91: VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91. IT'S NO LONGER NEEDED.... etc..." and then on the following page it says, "Argument against prop 91: No argument against prop 91 was submitted." I read that the first time and thought, "uh-what?" Seems like the solution to this actual problem lies in the inability to withdrawl an initiative after the train has left the station. All this talk about disenfrachising - you people can get on the next plane to China. I voted for Prop 91. I'm quite literate, quite well informed in political affairs, and quite familiar with the reasons why this initiative came about. Family friends have worked on original legislation to direct gas taxes to infrastucture. It wasn't a bill I needed to study, unlike the battle of the casinos. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #30 February 12, 2008 QuoteI see no issues with a basic literacy test. If you cannot read you cannot be reasonably informed. I disagree. One could, for example, listen to NPR's news and watch a couple dozen news programs and television and be reasonable informed. They may not be as informed as someone who reads four newspapers daily, but they would certainly be reasonably informed. Now, they may well have trouble reading the ballot, but that is a different issue.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 February 12, 2008 QuoteThis morning’s NPR "Weekend Edition" had a story about Sarah Boltuck, a 17-year old from Bethesda Maryland who was so motivated, interested, and informed (to know voting practices in her State for the last 100 years) in voting that she led a successful effort to have the State reinstate a practice allowing 17-yo’s who will be 18 by next year's general election to vote in this week’s primary. Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding those under eighteen from voting. It just makes it illegal to forbid someone who has reached the age of eighteen from voting on the basis of age.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #32 February 12, 2008 QuoteBush advertised who he was and hasn't lied about that. Are you referring to the "compassionate conservative" who would not engage in nation building? W. misrepresented himself plenty in 2000. By 2004, he had already demonstrated total incompetence, so it's more difficult to understand how he got more than a dozen or so votes nation wide.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #33 February 12, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Andy: I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But what I am saying is that there is some serious stuff that people are going for and just doing without any idea of it. I am careful with what I do. And I am concerned that people will vote for things that are not what they think they are. Exactly, when you vote to deprive poor people from medical care, it is well deliberated, I'm sure If I ever see a resolution to "deprive poor people of medical care", I promise to vote against it. Blues, Dave Becuase your side won't package it that way, they claim personal responsibility and how it's not the duty of gov to pay for............. bla, bla, bla........ ultimately, yes, you vote against poor people to get medical care via the maggots you elect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 February 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteBush advertised who he was and hasn't lied about that. Are you referring to the "compassionate conservative" who would not engage in nation building? W. misrepresented himself plenty in 2000. By 2004, he had already demonstrated total incompetence, so it's more difficult to understand how he got more than a dozen or so votes nation wide. Altho I wholly agree with you, compassionate conservatism is just a slogan so guys like Livendive and lawrocket can pretend they aen't voting for hard-core Nazis. I think we all really knew what he was about and few are shocked ny his war hobby, tax cuts for the rich and subsequent increasing of the debt by what will be 4.5 trillion bucks or so. Therefore he was/is as advertised. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #35 February 12, 2008 Quote Quote If I ever see a resolution to "deprive poor people of medical care", I promise to vote against it. Blues, Dave Becuase your side won't package it that way, they claim personal responsibility and how it's not the duty of gov to pay for............. bla, bla, bla........ ultimately, yes, you vote against poor people to get medical care via the maggots you elect. Pop quiz: What is my side? Do you know who I've helped elect? (I've run against my congressman, Doc Hastings (R) as a write-in since 2000, but not garnered many votes (my campaign consists of emailing friends and telling them to write my name in). I have not ever voted for any member of the Bush family. I will admit I have voted for both my senators, Maria Cantwell (D) and Patty Murray (D). What's your beef with them? Presumably you'd prefer that I had voted for their (R) opponents, as I don't recall any libertarian or green party candidates running against them.) Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #36 February 12, 2008 I resent the implication that I vote for Nazis. That's a pretty despicable characterization and I'm a bit fed up with the hate grenades you lob. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #37 February 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteBush advertised who he was and hasn't lied about that. Are you referring to the "compassionate conservative" who would not engage in nation building? W. misrepresented himself plenty in 2000. By 2004, he had already demonstrated total incompetence, so it's more difficult to understand how he got more than a dozen or so votes nation wide. Altho I wholly agree with you, compassionate conservatism is just a slogan so guys like Livendive and lawrocket can pretend they aen't voting for hard-core Nazis. I think we all really knew what he was about and few are shocked ny his war hobby, tax cuts for the rich and subsequent increasing of the debt by what will be 4.5 trillion bucks or so. Therefore he was/is as advertised. Quoted for posterity. I've made it abundantly clear in this forum for several years now what I think of the fucktard currently occupying the white house. I'll try to avoid assuming that the rest of your opinions are as informed as this one, though I imagine that will frequently prove difficult. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 February 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteBush advertised who he was and hasn't lied about that. Are you referring to the "compassionate conservative" who would not engage in nation building? W. misrepresented himself plenty in 2000. By 2004, he had already demonstrated total incompetence, so it's more difficult to understand how he got more than a dozen or so votes nation wide. Not really.... I think it was more voting *against* Kerry than voting *for* Bush for a lot of people.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #39 February 12, 2008 QuoteNot really.... I think it was more voting *against* Kerry than voting *for* Bush for a lot of people. It's pretty safe to say that for most everyone else, it was about voting *against* Bush, and not voting *for* Kerry. Ain't American politics grand?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 February 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteNot really.... I think it was more voting *against* Kerry than voting *for* Bush for a lot of people. It's pretty safe to say that for most everyone else, it was about voting *against* Bush, and not voting *for* Kerry. Ain't American politics grand? Yup, like usual due to the money issues and campaigning, we're stuck between voting for "More-of-the-same Shithead #1" and "More-of-the-same Shithead #2". I'm hoping RP runs as an indie, to be honest - at this point in the campaign I'm not in favor of ANY of the front runners.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
