|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 15:47:36 GMT -5
That's one thing that Asimov supported: Passing a basic test on politics before being permitted to vote. I would add that having a basic understanding of economics would be a good requirement.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 15:45:23 GMT -5
It's not anti-Obama, it's pro-Israel, and when our president is a traitor to what is right, then someone needs to step up and do what is right.
Just as when W was passing unconstitutional laws, it would have been nice for the other branch (you know, the ones that are there for checks and balances?) would have said, "whoa! wait a minute here!"
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 15:43:28 GMT -5
My guess would be that they were not targeted for being black and hispanic, but that more blacks and hispanics are unlicensed.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 14:58:41 GMT -5
All I stated was the founding fathers had the right idea when they put in requirements to vote. And I stated specifically that those requirements could have been changed, so my "intentions" could not have been interpreted in any way to support limiting it by those means.
But, Ronad has a comprehension deficit.
As to what would be reasonable on voting requirements, anyone who does not pay taxes should not be able to vote on how taxes are spent. Period.
Requiring land ownership is also a good idea, because the laws affect them directly. (It's easy to see how property taxes are raised by renters who are stupid enough to think they don't have to pay them.)
It's easy to spend someone else's money and make laws that affect "the other guy".
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 14:43:41 GMT -5
Good for him!
Obama wants to abandon our allies and support their enemies, it's time for someone to stand up to that sort of garbage!
Even the PM of Canada, as "progressive" as he is, is supporting Israel while Obama is failing.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 14:22:15 GMT -5
might make your antennas work better. I went to a wedding last weekend where two antennas got married. The ceremony was kind of lame, but the reception was fantastic!
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 12:55:57 GMT -5
I'm waiting for you to show where I said such a thing here, as well.
Are you pathological, or are you just so stupid that you can't comprehend the basic English language?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 12:54:35 GMT -5
Bump.
I'm still waiting for you to scan it and show where I said such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 12:16:44 GMT -5
Once again, I challenge you to show where I said that, you lying sack of dirt.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 11:28:35 GMT -5
Most people in this country have little idea of things, they read the headlines with out reading the story and think they know what is going on. They listen to the 10 sec sound bite and think they know what is said. Most attention spans can be measured in seconds. There's a reason the founding fathers wisely put in place requirements to vote. We removed those requirements, and look at the mess we're in! Perhaps their requirements could have been changed, but eliminating has proved to be a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 11:26:19 GMT -5
I'm needing to add the OED to my library, instead of bugging my professor friend every time I need to do an etymological study. However, I'm not up for spending over $1000 on it, and I don't want to take up all the shelf space. Does anyone have any experience with the CD ROM version?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 12, 2010 11:23:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 11, 2010 14:08:01 GMT -5
As long as they get their converter box back, they're happy.
I called them, gave them two weeks to pick it up, then took it to the dump.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 11, 2010 10:51:54 GMT -5
And if one person stands up and does the right thing and refuses earmarks, maybe a few more will be shamed into doing the right thing, and if enough do it, they can then prevent those without a conscience from doing it.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 11, 2010 10:41:53 GMT -5
It's not scientific, obviously, but the opinion here seems to be, Duke is very much in the minority.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 18:23:22 GMT -5
If you can't beat 'em, lie about 'em, eh, Ronad? The National Review's article was commentary based upon the WSJ article, and is subjectively based on that. They're not reporting anything. National Review's Article on Paul and Earmarks
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 17:48:33 GMT -5
Only because Obama and his cronies are printing up more money, can it be said that states get back more than they pay in, and much of that "get back" is in forms that are... questionable, at best. And, in other news, unsurprisingly, the whole report is a lie: Paul is still an anti-earmark senatorIf you can't beat what you fear honestly, lie about it. That's the "progressive" way!
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 17:16:16 GMT -5
Hmmm...
Where did he take a "principled stand" against them?
He wants to get rid of them, but I didn't see him promise to not try to get some of Kentucky's money back from the federal government while playing under the current rules.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 16:33:01 GMT -5
Still can't find it, eh?
How long does it take you to search a few lines?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 15:28:37 GMT -5
Why am I not surprised that you can't quote it?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 15:25:16 GMT -5
THIS is a plane?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 15:15:47 GMT -5
Mind quoting where I extolled any virtues in it?
I've read it several times, and I don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 13:52:30 GMT -5
So, are you incapable of being truthful?
Where did I extol the virtues of any kind of slavery?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 13:51:19 GMT -5
As usual, Ronad, your insipid drivel is leaking out.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 13:41:52 GMT -5
Usually revolutions such as this take two election cycles to even be felt.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 12:55:38 GMT -5
Where does it say that he loves them? Or even approves of them?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 12:39:49 GMT -5
Not to mention the founding fathers put it into the Constitution to phase out slavery, and not all slavery situations were unhappy. Hence, freed slaves often took their former master's names and even chose to stay there. Many former slaves owned slaves. And in many cases, slaves were inheritors in the wills.
The thing that was forcing slavery out peacefully was the economic situation in which many landowners found it was cheaper to free the slaves and then hire them to work. No overhead for room and board an no guards.
As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, slaves, understanding the value of education, were nearly 100% literate, which was higher than the general population, and this remained true, even after it became illegal to educate a slave.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 12:34:52 GMT -5
With Obama's cronies printing money like crazy, it will hit the 140's.
Only problem is, it will be worth the 30's where it currently is.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 12:33:12 GMT -5
We're talking about changing the system.
The concept is identical.
So, what's the difference?
The only difference is that "progressives" can whine about someone who wants to correct a corrupt system with one, but not the other.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Nov 10, 2010 10:42:11 GMT -5
If a candidate were pushing for a new currency, and ran on a platform of working toward getting a new currency, but still used the old, would that be a flip-flop or simply working within the existing system while changing it?
|
|