Posted on 08/09/2007 7:41:37 PM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
And how do you propose to teach "discernment?"
And just who possesses "discernment"--people whose thinking you approve of?
If that's all they care about, then they're probably not interested in voting.
So there's no lack of common sense and no lack of villans in that group?
My own experience with accomplished, independent, successful people, is that outside their field of expertise, they aren't especially knowledgeable.
Because they spent the majority of their time and effort making money--not learning about life and the world in general.
ohhhh: "Many liberals like George Soros and other rich fools "
Let me see if I understand this:
Accomplished, independent, successful people do a better job of running things--
Yet many, independent, successful people are also liberals like George Soros and other rich fools?
And how do you propose to teach “discernment?”
And just who possesses “discernment”—people whose thinking you approve of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never proposed to teach anything, that is your imagining! What I said is we should place limits on who can vote. As far as who possesses discernment, I will give you one clue, they don’t make absurd statements like this.
“So, what’s a politician to do except make up issues over which to get the ignorant public (including you and me) stirred up.”
Please buy a clue from someone.
Ten minute.
The danger of the 17th amendment is not an erosion of states rights. That’s more a matter of the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine, for better and worse. And neither did the 17th amendment empower an ignorant electorate. Instead, in delinking the Senate from the state house, it removed the connection between the local electorate and those state officials.
The 17th distances state representatives from all but the most empowered local agitators. By distancing the people from their local representation we have empowered apathy in the majority and grandeur in a very small minority.
The progressives who enacted the 17th amendment thought they were protecting majority rule. Most foolish.
On the national scale, a vanguard of the Republic remains the Electoral College. I won’t say the nation will collapse into Rome-Falls fantasies of many of the 19th century romanticists around here, but it would empower minority coalitions along the lines of European parliamentary systems that fuel independent movements.
So what happens when those who own more property than you . . .
And are more literate than you . . .
And better versed in the Constitution than you . . .
Decide you shouldn't have the vote?
What does your question have to do with the original Constitution?
Hmmm.... About the age when public education starts to infect their minds.
As a conservative, female renter, who tried to learn more and read about our choices before the election so I could vote properly instead of for whoever the media promotes, I resent the possible implication that my vote shouldn’t count. I’ll crawl to the polling place if I have to. If I can’t crawl, my husband will carry me.
George Romney favored federal civil rights legislation. Barry Goldwater didn't. That's why Romney withheld his endorsement of Goldwater's candidacy.
George Romney certainly should have supported the party's nominee, but I wouldn't hold his committment to civil rights against him.
Mitt's father was a moderate Republican, with a liberal side and a conservative side. He'd have been the first to admit that, if he didn't hate labels so much:
"I have undertaken to avoid labels ... I would like to have people judge me by what I stand for on specific issues. I would like to be as conservative as the Constitution of the United States, as progressive as Theodore Roosevelt, and as liberal as Abraham Lincoln." -- George Romney, 1964
But it was another era. Things we take for granted today, like no discrimination in public facilities were very much a matter of debate then.
The majority has come around to respecting Barry Goldwater, and I'd like to think that Goldwaterites can show some of the same generosity of spirit to past opponents.
Agreed... and of course, congress tries it’s best to keep it’s corruption under cover.
Hillary, who speaks out against government secrecy and for transparency, refuses to release her WH docs and memos until after the election. Public awareness of her nonsense is of no value AFTER the election...
All true, but at what point do we hold the ignorant themselves accountable?
I hate to say this but giving women the right to vote was a bad idea. MOST not all women vote by feelings not facts. See JFK. I was talking to a woman the other day she knows nothing about hillary’s politics but says it would be good to have a women president. That is what she bases her vote on. Idiot.
If you want to remain free, you had better trust the brave, the willing to fight, not the meek and weak.
If you want to be prosperous, you had better rely upon the industrious, not the lazy.
If you want to be fiscally responsible, you had better hire someone with a track record of building and retaining wealth, not someone known for outspending their income on a regular basis.
If you want smaller, less intrusive government, you had better not vote for someone who promises “free stuff” from the treasury, which requires the growth of spending and government.
You need not be a genius to get it right. You just have to be honest and have at least an ounce of common sense. Sadly, too many have had the common sense educated right out of them...
I’m for a simple test...
If you contribute to society, by military service or paying income taxes, you should have a say about what happens in your country with YOUR resources.
But if you are a parasite, a taker rather than a giver, a dependent of the state rather than a productive funder of the state, you should not have a say.
Do you let your children run the household finances? No - because they are “dependents” of that household and as such, they have no idea how to run the household in a way that will keep it afloat.
Only after they have to earn, retain and pay bills, will they begin to have any idea what it takes to run a household. Until then, their opinion of what you should do with your money is of no real value and if you listen to what they think you should do with your money, you will be broke...
50% of Americans do NOT pay income taxes today. Most of them get a tax “refund” on taxes they never paid to begin with. This is a form of “redistribution” of wealth, socialism. How do you expect these folks to vote about your money?
The same way your children would...
Bill Clinton was “cute”...
Al Gore lost mostly because he isn’t “cute”.
John Edwards is “cute”... Howard Dean was not “cute”...
Women vote their soap opera fantasies... Not all...just the liberals...LOL
Thanks for telling me that I shouldn’t be able to vote BECAUSE I AM A WOMAN. There’s no better qualified voter in this nation by any and all criteria used to measure, than ME. So who is the idiot? The problem is that tons of both men and women are unqualified. And we long ago stopped trying to set standards and keep to them for who can vote and who can’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.