C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 3, 2013 10:34am
...because it's their country to screw up as much as it is yours.sleeper;1511425 wrote:... Still haven't provided a response on why you want stupid people making decisions on the future of the country. ...
Me?
Posts: 547
Oct 3, 2013 10:35am
For the record, I'm not advocating an intelligence test for voting. But proof of employment, I could go for.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 3, 2013 12:26pm
It's a sad state of affairs when someone provides a solution to prevent screwing up the country and then is told that its simply their right to screw up the country. Shame on your Con_Alma.Con_Alma;1511910 wrote:...because it's their country to screw up as much as it is yours.
Belly35
Posts: 9,716
Oct 3, 2013 4:30pm
ding ding ding ... Solution: If you can legal be a gun owner in your state you can vote....
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Oct 3, 2013 8:30pm
Spelling test in order to vote.
Belly35
Posts: 9,716
Oct 3, 2013 11:06pm
. No need for spelling, just a punchernest_t_bass;1512224 wrote:Spelling test in order to vote.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Oct 4, 2013 1:38am
For starters, do away with the "D" or "R" designation on ballets.
Second, a voter disenfranchises a particular "choice" if they cannot select one of the two actual candidates from a list that includes several fakes. If you don't even know who is running, your vote should not count.
Second, a voter disenfranchises a particular "choice" if they cannot select one of the two actual candidates from a list that includes several fakes. If you don't even know who is running, your vote should not count.
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Oct 4, 2013 8:29am
You are so fucking retarded. "gun owners, mo-fo. But me know not kneed to speel."Belly35;1512412 wrote:. No need for spelling, just a punch
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 4, 2013 8:34am
sleeper;1511983 wrote:It's a sad state of affairs when someone provides a solution to prevent screwing up the country and then is told that its simply their right to screw up the country. Shame on your Con_Alma.
It may be sad but it's reality. What you think is a solution may be in opposition to what they think is a solution. Their thoughts are as equally weighted as yours.
Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Oct 4, 2013 10:01am
The Sleeper Litmus Test for Qualified Voting
1. Do you have a job If you Answerd yes, Go to Question 2. If you answered NO Stop now, You are disqualified.
2. Do you believe in GOD? If you Answered NO, Go to Question 3. If you answered Yes Stop now, You are disqualified.
3. Are You a Democrat or have Liberal leanings? If you Answered NO, Go to Question 4. If you answered Yes Stop now, You are disqualified.
4. ... .... .....
1. Do you have a job If you Answerd yes, Go to Question 2. If you answered NO Stop now, You are disqualified.
2. Do you believe in GOD? If you Answered NO, Go to Question 3. If you answered Yes Stop now, You are disqualified.
3. Are You a Democrat or have Liberal leanings? If you Answered NO, Go to Question 4. If you answered Yes Stop now, You are disqualified.
4. ... .... .....
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 4, 2013 10:09am
So a PHD in economics opinion should be equally weighted with someone like BoatShoes on economic topics? I hope that's not what you are implying...Con_Alma;1512534 wrote:It may be sad but it's reality. What you think is a solution may be in opposition to what they think is a solution. Their thoughts are as equally weighted as yours.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 4, 2013 10:10am
The 1st question is relevant the other two are not. However, a belief in god would signal mental and potentially intellectual weakness and therefore question 1 would 9 times out of 10 solve that problem.Devils Advocate;1512604 wrote:The Sleeper Litmus Test for Qualified Voting
1. Do you have a job If you Answerd yes, Go to Question 2. If you answered NO Stop now, You are disqualified.
2. Do you believe in GOD? If you Answered NO, Go to Question 3. If you answered Yes Stop now, You are disqualified.
3. Are You a Democrat or have Liberal leanings? If you Answered NO, Go to Question 4. If you answered Yes Stop now, You are disqualified.
4. ... .... .....
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 4, 2013 10:11am
With regards to the right to vote, it's not what I'm implying, it's a fact.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 4, 2013 10:13am
However if one can demonstrate via a test that they are qualified by a bi-partisan standard, wouldn't you prefer them to have their opinion elevated above others? Why are you content with the status quo?Con_Alma;1512614 wrote:With regards to the right to vote, it's not what I'm implying, it's a fact.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 4, 2013 10:19am
I would not rather have on person's opinion elevated over another's ...no matter their partisanship. Why would you assume I am content with the status quo? Is it because I pointed out the current civil rights laws don't support your solution?
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 4, 2013 10:22am
Perhaps because I'm trying to change the status quo with my solution. If we allow intelligent people to make decisions and punish those who are either lazy and/or stupid, then we create an environment where there is either A) an incentive to become intelligent and be a productive member of society or B) all those who are productive and have demonstrated intelligence the ability to control the future of the country.Con_Alma;1512627 wrote:I would not rather have on person's opinion elevated over another's ...no matter their partisanship. Why would you assume I am content with the status quo? Is it because I pointed out the current civil rights laws don't support your solution?
I don't see how any rational person would think this is a bad idea. :huh:
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 4, 2013 10:28am
I appreciate you acknowledging your inability to see any other rational solutions.
Our form of government was created in such a way that permits the people to design the type of society they collectively want. Those people include the non-"productive" and non-"intelligent". That collective desire may in fact not be that which you or I might desire individually. You'll need a broader and deeper solution than voting qualifications. The judicial branch would most likely not rule in your favor.
Our form of government was created in such a way that permits the people to design the type of society they collectively want. Those people include the non-"productive" and non-"intelligent". That collective desire may in fact not be that which you or I might desire individually. You'll need a broader and deeper solution than voting qualifications. The judicial branch would most likely not rule in your favor.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 4, 2013 11:28am
Hence why I'm proposing a solution to the problem. Not sure why you are unable to grasp such a simple concept Con_Alma; this isn't a dictatorship.Con_Alma;1512635 wrote:I appreciate you acknowledging your inability to see any other rational solutions.
Our form of government was created in such a way that permits the people to design the type of society they collectively want. Those people include the non-"productive" and non-"intelligent". That collective desire may in fact not be that which you or I might desire individually. You'll need a broader and deeper solution than voting qualifications. The judicial branch would most likely not rule in your favor.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Oct 4, 2013 11:32am
Grade A trolling. : thumbup: Good to have you back.sleeper;1512609 wrote:So a PHD in economics opinion should be equally weighted with someone like BoatShoes on economic topics? I hope that's not what you are implying...
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 4, 2013 11:34am
I understand your proposal and am telling you it won't work. The reason it won't work is because it has no chance of being put into place without a much greater proposal being much broader and deeper completely changing our entire government. Without it such a "solution" each man, no matter his intelligence or productivity is equal.
Maybe it's the simplicity of your proposal that has it doomed to fail.
Maybe it's the simplicity of your proposal that has it doomed to fail.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 4, 2013 12:27pm
Unfortunately I have to keep it simple in order for the stupids to understand it. I think my proposal would pass if it was tied to a bill that gave anyone who voted for it a free iPhone 5c. I'm unsure why you think its not possible; please learn to think outside the box Con_Alma.Con_Alma;1512682 wrote:I understand your proposal and am telling you it won't work. The reason it won't work is because it has no chance of being put into place without a much greater proposal being much broader and deeper completely changing our entire government. Without it such a "solution" each man, no matter his intelligence or productivity is equal.
Maybe it's the simplicity of your proposal that has it doomed to fail.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Oct 4, 2013 12:44pm
It's a right to vote and you are just creating more classes, like the British, when trying to do something like this. I'm against anything other than just proving you are who you are say you are when you go to vote.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 4, 2013 1:09pm
sleeper;1512707 wrote:Unfortunately I have to keep it simple in order for the stupids to understand it. I think my proposal would pass if it was tied to a bill that gave anyone who voted for it a free iPhone 5c. I'm unsure why you think its not possible; please learn to think outside the box Con_Alma.
What do you mean by it would pass? It's a civil right ruled on by the judicial branch....thus the reason for my comments with regards your proposal would have to be much broader and deeper...for it would require ridding the ability of such legal rulings by a branch like the courts. That's "outside the box".
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Oct 4, 2013 1:13pm
Con_Alma, I'm willing to work with you or anyone in order to get the job done. By it would pass, I mean a new constitutional amendment banning stupid people and those without a job from voting. This would pass if we gave people free iPhones in exchange(which judging by how Obama won, it would be a landslide).Con_Alma;1512747 wrote:What do you mean by it would pass? It's a civil right ruled on by the judicial branch....thus the reason for my comments with regards your proposal would have to be much broader and deeper...for it would require ridding the ability of such legal rulings by a branch like the courts. That's "outside the box".
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Oct 4, 2013 1:18pm
You think giving free phones to people would convince representatives to pass such a bill? I disagree.sleeper;1512750 wrote:Con_Alma, I'm willing to work with you or anyone in order to get the job done. By it would pass, I mean a new constitutional amendment banning stupid people and those without a job from voting. This would pass if we gave people free iPhones in exchange(which judging by how Obama won, it would be a landslide).
In addition, the judical branch has no reason to pander for such votes. I disagree that such a bill would be deemed acceptable. Your suggestion is too simple.
P.S. It'a not me you need to work with no matter if you're willing or not.