Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 8 Feb 2010 08:04 In article <m5Pbn.30243$fu3.19661(a)newsfe12.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > On 7-Feb-2010, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > 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? > > but par for the course Well, isn't it strange how the advent of the world's greatest uniting event, a world war, signaled the end of any nonsense? Now you want to turn back the clock. Typical.
From: BAR on 8 Feb 2010 08:05 In article <7f0a3d74-6a0e-4fa1-8d23-b7f3d7889089 @o26g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Feb 7, 10:27�am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <5766a505-e9d9-4800-9aa3-a020f2f56916 > > @f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > I'm simply trying to determine whether Tancredo's comments represent > > > mainstream conservative thought. How is that a trap? > > > > You did set a trap and you know it. > > > > If you were genuinely interested in how widespread the view was held you > > would not have localized the question to just Republicans. > > > > Try answering this question John: Do Democrats enjoy beating their wives > > and children? > > I already expanded my sample to include conservatives, libertarians, > and people who voted for McCain. Why don't you include liberals?
From: BAR on 8 Feb 2010 08:11 In article <d60836b0-1f8a-4861-8f44-a04983410457 @q27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Feb 7, 12:56�pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:33:33 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: > > > On 07 Feb 2010 16:21:40 GMT, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >>I came across a study recently that argued liberals tend to be more > > >>educated and higher functioning than social conservatives. It's possible > > >>that a civics literacy test would hurt the Republicans more than the > > >>Democrats. > > > > > It all depends on who writes the tests. > > > > Whoever wrote them, they wouldn't be able to get away with injecting > > obvious bias into them. > > > What would happen is that most people would refuse to take the test. > Some would take it and fail. Voter turnout would drop to about 10% of > eligible voters. The United States would no longer be a democracy. It > would be a meritocracy. But it's a moot point. Conditioning voting on > passage of a test would violate the Constitution and the Voting Rights > Act. Why, there used to be a test in order to vote. You had to be a land owner.
From: BAR on 8 Feb 2010 08:13 In article <clark-8E8488.22070607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > In article <H0Ibn.75094$JE2.42138(a)newsfe09.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org > wrote: > > > On 7-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>I came across a study recently that argued liberals tend to be more > > > >>educated and higher functioning than social conservatives. It's possible > > > >>that a civics literacy test would hurt the Republicans more than the > > > >>Democrats. > > > > > > > > It all depends on who writes the tests. > > > > > > Whoever wrote them, they wouldn't be able to get away with injecting > > > obvious bias into them. > > > > you haven't been to a campus lately have you? One of the last classes I ever > > took was innocuously titled "Literary Theory." It was a graduate seminar > > organized around variations on Marxist thought (though not explicitly > > labeled as such). > > Indeed, I have a class tomorrow in the "Stalinist Approach to Crystal > Structures and Characterization". Get real. It wouldn't surprise me that you did.
From: William Clark on 8 Feb 2010 08:19
In article <alangbaker-3C5F65.19292707022010(a)news.shawcable.com>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <clark-DBBAB6.22194607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > The fact is that one vote per houselhold, combined with widespread > > gerrymandering (which the Protestant minority, being in power, could > > implement) led to the civil rights marches of 1968 and the ensuing > > Troubles. I don't think we need that here. And pre-1945 Britain actually > > moved on - you seem to want to turn the clock back to the Victorian ers. > > William: > > Your thesis was that the policy was what led to the Troubles. > > You were both wrong on the facts (and AFAICT presented what you got > right with a deliberate slant) and if your thesis is valid, it must > address why other jurisdictions didn't experience the same probems. > > Furthermore, you continue with this strawman that I advocate > disenfranchising anyone. No, sorry, you are the one that's wrong. The electoral system in Northern Ireland, especially in Londonderry, was the single root cause for the civil rights marches of 1968 and beyond, that escalated into the Troubles. If you knew a little more about NI than you have gleaned from one source, you would have learnt that Londonderry was where the anti-Catholic system was at its most virulent, and being a border city, where affiliation to the UK weakest amongst the majority. By the way, you also conveniently omitted the fact that almost a quarter of the population of Londonderry, the vast majority of them Catholic, had no vote. Giving a significant number of people multiple votes has the same effect as disenfranchising others - their votes are effectively obliterated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > They try, but fortunately the swing voters in the middle usually see > > through them and vote their way. Would you have said in Summer of 2008 > > that Obama's was a platform to "appeal to the majority"? No - it was > > Magoo and Barbie that tries to do that, and got dumped. > > They both tried to appeal to the majority. You're evading the point. In summer 2008, with Obama well behind in the polls, it was clearly Magoo/Barbie who played to the conventional majority. Obama had to win by energizing new voters, not by playing to this existing group. > > We have a growing disaster in our society: we're spending a lot of money > and getting less and less back for it. Instead of hitting the cable news panic button, why don't we apply ourselves and take a longer view to getting out of this mess. I don't want to live in any society where the electoral system gives an AIG bonus hound additional influence to visit their greed and incompetence on the rest of us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, if you give any one person more votes than the other, then you are > > effectively disenfranchising those on the bottom end. Instead of my > > vote canceling out Bush's for example, he will be able to cancel out me, > > and several others, and still have a vote that counts. It is nonsense. > > No. That is not disenfranchising anyone. Sorry. Yes, it is. Simple math says so. If the votes of, say, 300,000 people are only worth the same as those of 150,000, you have effectively disenfranchised half of the larger group. > > I don't know that it will work, but so far, your only "example" has been > a society whose problems you haven't shown were caused by their version > of the same idea. You clearly have not spent time in NI, have you? Especially 40 years ago, or you wouldn't be quite so glib about this. |