Which party did you vote for in the last 4 Presidential Elections?

[martyb]

Retiredbop...I gotcher back. As stated, there were many reasons for the war between the states, slavery included. Of course no one believes slavery was good and should still exist (although it certainly does in third world countries). My family owned slaves in the 1800's in North Carolina, and lost everything, along with most of the south in the Civil War. My great-great grandfather and his wife are buried on a hill overlooking his old homeplace, right next to many of his former slaves. Through the following years some of them requested to be buried at the "old home place" because that's where they considered home. When they were set free many of them did not leave, but chose to stay and work for my ggf on his farm. They were more like family than slaves. I'm sure this was not the same 100% all over the south, but it did happen. There were of course slaveholders who did not treat their slaves with compassion and these are the ones we always think of whenever the subject of slavery comes up. Slavery was wrong, and would never be tolerated in this country again, but it was absolutely not the entire story of the Civil War. I am proud of my family's history, having at least 5 ancestors who served the Confederacy during that time in our nation's history. However, I'm now sworn to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic so my allegiance is clear. The period in history of the American Civil War is a fantastic story, one I would urge all to spend some in-depth time to study. Please dig deeper than just what's on the surface, you'll be surprised.

 

[LeatherneckPA]

Even if a State wants to allow slavery? Do you mean that you would support the right of a State to allow slave ownership over the US government's desire to provide freedom?

Hmmmm, tough question. Personally, I could not stand for it. But then I'd probably have moved out of such a state by then anyway. My reference to being a Confederate was pointed more at the "hand-out, give-it-away" government that has corrupted this great country. MN started moving in the right direction when they stopped increasing welfare payments to "baby-mill" mothers who were just trying to increase their monthly income via as many fathers as it took. You want more money? You want a higher standard of living? Get off your dead arse and EARN it!

Granted I'm relatively new to this board, but from what I've seen I don't think I've read about too many people who had their nest egg handed to them. They EARNED it. And that's the way it's meant to be.

Marty, congratulations and thank you. You've obviously done some reading and not swallowed the "lies" taught in our early years. It's really a fascinating area of study if you get past the whole "war to free the slaves" bologna. I would never say the slavery issue was not important, but I also don't believe it was the over-riding issue that brought it all to a head. Nice to see someone who still celebrates family history.

And the issue of the number of freed men who chose to return to "home" is something the "anti-slavers" either don't realize or refuse to admit. Just like the "anti-gunners" who refuse to accept facts which patently prove stricter gun laws don't reduce crime.

Sgeeeee, shame on you, you're an instigator.

 

[laurence]

Slaves were more like family? Baby-mill welfare moms? Wow, just, wow.

Read Fredrick Douglass, then find out the cost per year of welfare and the cost per year of agriculture subsidies that mostly go to mega-corps like ADM. Then find out the demographics of who exactly is on welfare by race and geographic location.

 

[USK Coastie]

An ultra right guy here. Only persons who have defended this country by bearing arms in the military services should have the right to vote. The rest of you have not paid the price required to be called citizen.........

 

[HFWR]

This does not jibe with the Founding Fathers' views, who thought only white male landowners should get to vote...

 

[laurence]

Do you know why the Commander in Cheif is a civilian?

There are countries who would support your view, I don't think you'd like to live in them.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Well, building off of another thread, I find it interesting how closely we scrutinize jury members and the reasons for ejecting them, while allowing anyone at all to vote for who runs the place.

 

[laurence]

I would entertain a bundled amendment that made voting mandatory and had a material you had to read with a quiz at the end before you actually voted (anyone who has done computer based training knows what I'm talking about).

 

[brewer12345]

An ultra right guy here. Only persons who have defended this country by bearing arms in the military services should have the right to vote. The rest of you have not paid the price required to be called citizen.........

Waaaaahahahahahahaha!!!!

You know, you need some of us to actually be productive, tax-paying citizens so that the gummint can afford to buy you all those toys that go "boom"...

 

[LeatherneckPA]

An ultra right guy here. Only persons who have defended this country by bearing arms in the military services should have the right to vote. The rest of you have not paid the price required to be called citizen.........

AMEN BROTHER!! USMC, ooo-rah!

 

[JohnEyles]

An ultra right guy here. Only persons who have defended this country by bearing arms in the military services should have the right to vote. The rest of you have not paid the price required to be called citizen.........

My God in heaven, what rock did this moron crawl out from under ?

Can we assume you voted for Kerry over Bush ?

I'd say that only persons who have a f*cking clue what the US Constitution is
about should have the right to vote (hint: the founding fathers realized it was
very important to have civilian oversight of the military, specifically by having
the Commander in Chief be a civilian).

That being said, I believe that serving honorably in the Armed Forces demonstrates
a commitment and contribution to the country, much like serving as a school teacher
and educating the next generation of Americans, or establishing a business that
provides decent jobs and goods/services without exploiting the enviroment or the poor;
I believe the latter does every bit as much to "make America strong" as the former.
For those who disagree, I find it unbelievable that they would vote for GW Bush over
John McCain (as many S'Carolinians did in 2000) or John Kerry.

 

[sgeeeee]

This is a very interesting thread. . . Creepy, scary and frightening at times, but interesting.

 

[califdreamer]

Hmm. Two "did not vote".

But did here

 

[laurence]

31 voted Republican 3 or 4 out of 4, 38 demo 3 or 4 out of 4, so while there is a slight plurality for demo (out of those who responded), I think it's pretty safe to say this board has all types!

 

[REWahoo]

...I think it's pretty safe to say this board has all types!

Talk about stating the obvious...

 

[Nords]

I would entertain a bundled amendment that made voting mandatory and had a material you had to read with a quiz at the end before you actually voted (anyone who has done computer based training knows what I'm talking about).

Could we get that in Tagalog, Ilocano, and Hongul? Oh, and Thai too while you're at it, please.

My God in heaven, what rock did this moron crawl out from under ?

It's the polite and reasoned tone of discourse like that which makes this board such an enjoyable experience...

The idea can be traced back to Robert Heinlein's book "Starship Troopers", where only veterans were called "citizens" and allowed to vote. (The movie doesn't count, although I prefer the Denise Richards version.) He developed a number of other interesting civics ideas from his time at the U.S. Naval Academy, his 1930s active duty, his medical retirement for tuberculosis, and his life through the Cold War. But I think he declined to join the John Birch Society because he felt they were a bunch of liberal pinkos.

I think some sort of national service to earn the right to vote is a wonderful idea. It doesn't have to be military-- it could be something like the Peace Corps or the old CCC or the Americorps concept. I know a few hospitals that could benefit from candy-striper help, as well as not a few public-transportation cleaning crews...

And there's nothing wrong with a civilian Commander in Chief, as long as she's a veteran or has at least one of her kids on active duty... same for the Congresspeople who get to vote on wars and military appropriations!

 

[OAG]

Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense too. What the heck, make all 535 of them be veteran's!

 

[samclem]

To expand on the "Starship Troopers" voting idea, IIRC, those who served inthe military and those who didn't enjoyed entirely equal protection by the state (same rights, etc.) The only distinction was the right to vote (and maybe to hold office?). His idea was that you had to "earn" the franchise, demonstrate a commttment to the country and the common good through service. And, nobody could be turned down regardless of physical condition.

Heinlein was also a big opponent of any national draft/compulsory service.

Certainly controversial, but not without merit.

 

[brewer12345]

Certainly controversial, but not without merit.

Complete and utter bullshit and totally unsupported by historical precedent and anything in our nation's fundamental documents (Constitution, Declaration, etc.). Go play that tune in North Korea, where it would get a warm reception.

 

[lets-retire]

Complete and utter bull**** and totally unsupported by historical precedent and anything in our nation's fundamental documents (Constitution, Declaration, etc.). Go play that tune in North Korea, where it would get a warm reception.

Well you can't dispute that line of.....uh.....reasoning. :

 

[brewer12345]

Well you can't dispute that line of.....uh.....reasoning. :

Has as much or more merit as military types saying only military types should be in charge, um, because they say so.

 

[Nords]

Has as much or more merit as military types saying only military types should be in charge, um, because they say so.

I'm not sure which is more dangerous... putting military types in charge or letting the wars be run by civilians!

 

[samclem]

Has as much or more merit as military types saying only military types should be in charge, um, because they say so.

The "military types" suggested other forms of national service would also qualify. A gal/guy could empty bedpans in a VA hospital to earn their franchise.

Lots of things were not in the foundng documents. We've made a couple of modifications since then: women's suffrage, emancipation of slaves, etc. Most folks think these were improvements

I cant vote at a GM sharehlder's meeting unless I've demonstrated a commttment and shared mutual interst (by buying stock). This idea is similar in intent.

Don't worry, it won't happen. Which voters would vote to disenfranchise themselves? After all, the vote is the best legal way to have the government appropriate the property of others on one's behalf. Folks won't give that up!

Thank for the thoughtful reply!

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

All I know is, either way it'd look better with a little benny hill music in the background.

 

[lets-retire]

I'm not sure which is more dangerous... putting military types in charge or letting the wars be run by civilians!

I'd think having wars run by civilians who think they are military experts, would be the worst situation. If they are civilians who know they don't know anything about running a war then you can work with them. Complete military in charge, in my opinion, won't work.