From: assimilate on

On 7-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

> Exhibit one: Sarah Palin
>
> Exhibit 2: George W. Bush . .
>
> need we go on?

I'll see your hand and raise you an Obama and Jimmah Carter!

--
bill-o
From: assimilate on

On 7-Feb-2010, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
>
> At one time, the Republican party was the one standing for equal
> rights. But now those Dixiecrats have moved to the Republican party
> and things are different.

No Howard, the Dixiecrats have long passed, except one Robert C Byrd
perhaps. The "southern strategy" was a Nixon plan & that was almost half a
century ago. Please give it a rest.

--
bill-o
From: assimilate on

On 7-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets one
> > vote. Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person pays
> > in income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this would
> > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying for it.
> > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
>
> In other news, oil industry shareholders cast 100 million votes to kill
> alternative energy research. The owners of the US healthcare system put
> a similar number of votes toward killing any type of healthcare reform.

Alternative energy research can't be killed by oil cos you id-git. It is
being done by private firms everywhere. Because the gov't doesn't do or fund
it doesn't mean it's dead. And Healthcare reform was killed by the majority
in Congress, they were the ones that allowed themselves to be bought.

--
bill-o
From: Alan Baker on
In article
<clark-6B89C1.17543407022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

> In article <alangbaker-AAC593.14031507022010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <clark-B507BB.08034807022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <alangbaker-35AE26.20434306022010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> > > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article
> > > > <clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > > > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> > > > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups
> > > > > > > .c
> > > > > > > om
> > > > > > > ..
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups
> > > > > > >> .c
> > > > > > >> om
> > > > > > >> ..
> > > > > > >> .
> > > > > > >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegroup
> > > > > > >> >s.
> > > > > > >> >co
> > > > > > >> >m.
> > > > > > >> >..
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama
> > > > > > >> > > was
> > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people
> > > > > > >> > > who
> > > > > > >> > > can't
> > > > > > >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a
> > > > > > >> > > prerequisite
> > > > > > >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here
> > > > > > >> > > think
> > > > > > >> > > about
> > > > > > >> > > this. Do you defend him?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to
> > > > > > >> > enact
> > > > > > >> > socialist
> > > > > > >> > policies.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or
> > > > > > >> > write".
> > > > > > >> > That
> > > > > > >> > is stupid.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It
> > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > >> > never
> > > > > > >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact
> > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > >> > elections
> > > > > > >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes
> > > > > > >> > based
> > > > > > >> > on
> > > > > > >> > how
> > > > > > >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous
> > > > > > >> > year's
> > > > > > >> > tax
> > > > > > >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never
> > > > > > >> > happen.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you
> > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > >> > looking
> > > > > > >> > for.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > >> than those cast by people who don't?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> - - -
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in
> > > > > > >> taxes
> > > > > > >> since
> > > > > > >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > >> it.
> > > > > > >> What is wrong with that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you mean by "weight"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - - -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person
> > > > > > > pays
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > income
> > > > > > taxes you get two votes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK?
> > > >
> > > > Are you seriously suggesting that there is no chance that it could
> > > > produce a better society?
> > >
> > > Yes, I am. I saw how this system operated in Northern Ireland, and the
> > > consequences for the society of effectively disenfranchising large
> > > sections of the population. We all know where it ended up.
> >
> > I'm unfamiliar with the situation. Could you point me to some info?
>
> In Northern Ireland up until the 1970s, property and business owners had
> multiple votes, renters had none, thus effectively maintaining a
> Protestant minority in control of a predominantly Catholic city in
> perpetuo. It was this that was the stimulus for the civil rights marches
> of the late 1960s, that eventually degenerated into the "Troubles" that
> are only now just behind us. I think this idea is a recipe for the same
> civil unrest.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect on a number of particulars:

Only a very small percentage of property and business owners had
multiple votes. 1.5% according to the reference I read.

Renters had votes. Lodgers didn't and neither did adult children living
at home.

Also, this wasn't unique to Northern Ireland, so pointing only to
Ireland and its problem while ignoring that the rest of Britain operated
the same way until 1945 without "anarchy" is a little dishonest, don't
you think?

<http://suffrage-universel.be/uk/ukvoul.htm>

> >
> > > >
> > > > Right now we have a tyranny of the majority situation in one particular
> > > > area: if the majority want something, they can force the minority to
> > > > pay
> > > > for it.
> > >
> > > You are assuming that the majority is a) coherently organized, and b)
> > > all of the same mind. Our electoral system (as long as the districts are
> > > not gerrymandered) shows that the moveable center shifts sides and leads
> > > to change.
> >
> > You're assuming that coherent organization is necessary for politicians
> > to see which way the wind blows...
>
> I don't think so.

Really? You don't think political parties attempt to put together
platforms that will appeal to the majority?

> >
> > > >
> > > > If 5 guys on a street corner "vote" to "redistribute" the wealth of a
> > > > sixth, we usually call that a mugging...
> > >
> > > But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will
> > > call that "democracy"? I don't think so.
> >
> > You're assuming that he'll have that power. I'm not talking about making
> > money the only vote and I don't pretend to know where the balance point
> > should be, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't necessarily be some
> > counterbalancing.
>
> I don't follow. Giving any one individual the right to disenfranchise
> another, and that is what this will do, is asking for anarchy.

I'm sorry, but you're making that part up. I'm not suggesting that
anyone be disenfranchised and that is not automatically what this will
do.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on
In article <tTHbn.75092$JE2.71270(a)newsfe09.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org
wrote:

> On 7-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> > But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will
> > call that "democracy"? I don't think so.
>
> eviction is a result of not meeting one's contractual obligations and not of
> some vote taken.

Bill, I see the point he's trying to make and the real strawman is not
the concept of "eviction" (he's just using that to represent what one
powerful person can do someone weaker), but the idea that those "ten
poor people" will have no say at all.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>