Form an orderly queue...

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

mikewint said:
eagle, my statement was "federal service" not military service.
Click to expand...

Federal service? Your comments are increasingly sounding communist. Don't get your tidy whities in bind over my statement, but I don't think federal service should be considered as a hardship service in support of the "good ole USA". We have too many feds in our lives as it is. Advocating more seems contradictory to our country's origins. Military service is not even in the same class. I'm referring to civil service.
 
Oh my God
what?! only serving and ex-serving personnel get the vote? Doesn't that make for a rather right-wing electorate? Who are only ever going to elect right-wing administrations? Historically, didn't that lead down that 'barbed wire and ovens' avenue you alluded to in the Faking Receipt of Military Medals thread? Well OK, maybe not in 21st century America but it sounds like a murky path all the same.

mikewint said:
...furthermore the rights and privileges of one group never overshadow or cancel the rights of another group...
Click to expand...
Well, you just did
I don't know what you envision here Mike, but it doesn't sound healthy; a succession of right-wing administrations that would love to give its military all the toys but likely hasn't given the all-round development to their society in order to generate the tax-dollars necessary to support the dream. An expansionist foreign policy would fix that...

What was that ditty about he who forgets history?
 
Colin1 said:
...me first...
Click to expand...

Being British I am always amazed and amused at the far right (BNP) adopting far right ideas and Nazi symbols, they seem to forget that Hitler and Nazi Germany lost and Hitlers role as Nutter in chief played a major part in that defeat.
 
Ok guys, i guess i chose my word/terms poorly "Federal" was meant in the broadest sense, i.e. to the nation as a whole thus anyone who has served the "greater good" qualifies, fire, police, teachers, politicians, farmers, etc. much as what we had in WWII where some workers were declared draft exempt.
Seconly, i stated several times no one would loose any of their constitional rights including morons like this guy or our mr alveraz.
all have their freedom of expression intact as well as any other constitutonally guaranteed right.
Please note that our Constitution says nothing about the so called "right" to vote and the framers of that constitution never envisioned general, "your 18 YO and alive so you get to vote" type of franchise. voting was limited to landholders and even they could not vote directly for the highest office. they voted for the state legislators who voted on those who would actually vote for the president. out founding fathers feared, more than tyrany, they feared "mob" rule where demagogs could sway the masses to follow them.
 

I was going to post a Soviet Flag, but you beat me to it. Damn Server down time last night!

Colin1 said:
Oh my God
Historically, didn't that lead down that 'barbed wire and ovens' avenue you alluded to in the Faking Receipt of Military Medals thread?
Click to expand...

I am glad someone else sees the contradiction he is making to himself.


Have you ever thought that everyone has the right to the vote, because it is what makes a democracy work, and it is what is best for the people?
 
Last edited:
Eagle, there is no "right to vote" in the US Constitution. Various amendments list reasons why voting cannot be denied such as religion, color, sex, etc. but outside of those listed reasons voting may be denied. i simply proposed that voters demonstrate a vested interest in the future of the country. much as stock holders vote on the leaders/future of a company, non-stock holders cannot vote. look at the pic of that nazi-saluting druggie do any of you think he really cares about the future of the UK? why should he have an equal share in determining that future? Which is a long way from denying him his right to express himself as he did.
my oath was to defend the Constitution not a non-existent "right to vote"
 
Last edited:
In fairness, drug addled scum like this guy don't generally turn out to vote. He is probably unaware of the politics behind the gesture he made - he simply knows that it is offensive,

On the other side of the coin you have flipped, there has not been a qualification to vote in any Western democracy for the the best part of a century (other than criminal activity) - the final property qualifications for female voters went in the 1920s and 30s, some years after the male property qualifications were abolished. So should we really take a retrograde step and start deciding who in wider society is fit to vote and who is not? Constitutional literalism will not provide an answer - as deep as my respect for the US Constittution is, it is, and was always meant to be a work in progress, andf it is only in the last decade or so that a popular notion has been spread that it is somehow an immutable set of commandments. If you want to honour the Constitution as written, you must disenfranchise all women, all non-white people and most white males except a certain propertied or moneyed elite. And then you need to figure out how to recoup the massive tax revenue you just surrendered.

I cannot speak for you, but I come from a family that gave it's best years, and sometimes it's best lives, to defending the concept of personal liberty and corporate democracy. For that reason alone, I will always support full and free democracy over any other system. Democracy is not perfect and doesn't give us all of the answers - both Hitler and the Bolsheviks rose to prominence through free and fair elections. But the dictatorship of the few that you are advocating is exactly what your country, the French before you, and the English before that rebelled against, and I believe it is a tragedy for anyone to want to throw 250 years of true progress away so that they won't be offended...
 
Bomb, i agree with you almost entirely. our constitution is a "living" document but there is a certain amount of caution that democracy become mob rule, hence the is no "right to vote" written into it nor in any of the voting rights amendments. our supreme court constantly interprets what the constitution means and that also can change as the make-up of the court changes. i never said that i wanted to move backwards removing all of the various amendments. we already require voters to have met certain qualifications, 18 YO, registered, citizenship. I simply proposed adding a 4th qualification. personal liberty in the form of constitutionally guaranteed rights remain intact. Mr Nazi-salute can continue to offend and Mr. Alveraz can continue to claim an MOH.
 
But is the qualification itself in the best interest of the nation? Your interest is, naturally, vested (and I mean no slur by that), but on a wider scale, are those who serve in the Forces or have carried out some other government-approved form of service really better qualified to select the representatives than anyone else? And who in government decides who is fit to elect the government? It raises a specter of censorship through exclusion - would the RNC want ACLU activists voting, for example, if they could prevent it from happening? Or would the DNC want big business lobbyists voting if they could stop it?
 
bomb, agreed, it opens a can of worms and certainly invites abuse as does the granting of any freedom. lawyers get paid big buck to debate the meaning of words like "service" to the nation. notice that i have taken a broad definition so i would forsee very few who do not perform some service to the nation. i don't know about their qualifications but they have demonstrated that they care.
it just bugs me that someone like that Nazi-saluting cretin has the same say in determining the course of the nation as i do. many of you were very very upset at Alveraz claiming an MOH. while i was also upset i grant him the personal freedom to do so. like so many of you, i earned my freedom and rights. i left several pounds of my own personal hamburger behind in vietnam.
 
Last edited:
Who gets to decide what "serves" the nation? Is the guy who's dream was to open his own Pizzeria not deserving of having a vote? Does the guy who was in a car accident at the age of 13 and paralyzed for life from the neck down, not deserving of having a say in how our country is run?

Sorry it is a piss poor idea. Our "democracy" has evolved since the nation was founded. The "right" for everyone to vote was a step in the right direction.

In my opinion as soon as someone makes an attempt to say that certain citizens are not allowed to be represented or have a voice (by voting) then we are taking a step backwards. Again this is 2010 not 1776!

The day that we as a nation restrict people from voting because someone decides that others are not "worthy" enough because they did not "serve" there nation (who has the right to decide what is serving anyhow???), is the day that I will stop calling myself an American! I did not serve my country in the Army so that others can not have that right.
 
eagle, you ignore the fact that there is no constitutionally guaranteed "right" to vote. it does not exist. only a presently accepted list of reasons why voting cannot be denied leaving many openings to deny voting at any time.
those in the national guard serve both themselves and the nation. your pizza guy joins the guard. Stephen Hawking can only move his eyes yet he is a major scientist. your 14 YO has a functioning brain and can develop any number of skills. computers come to mind immediately. we have not seen computer terrorism yet except for small individual hackers but that is certainly a possibility.
i fought too, long and hard. what does the thought of Mr Nazi-salute's vote canceling yours do for you?
 

You choose to ignore the fact that "federal service" does not make you a good citizen or not. It is not about what is a "right" or not. It is about what makes a democracy a democracy.

Mr. Nazi salute is not even a part of this equation.
 
I will be staying out of this discussion from now as well. I have said my piece.

The reason I will stay out of this is simple. This thread has dabbled to much into the realm of politics. We have an unofficial "no Politics" rule here in this forum. As a forum staff member, I will stick to this unofficial rule.
 
eagle, i do not know you personally but your posts are excellent and to the point and your knowledge is second to none. i have a great deal of respect for you and differences of opinion are what it is all about. if i have strayed into politics please accept my sincerest apologizes
 

No worries Mike, my sentiments are the same.

As a forum staff member, I should stick to this policy however.
 
eagle, perhaps not broke but bent at bit like our previous debate on Mr Alveraz. i personally enjoy such a debate it is such differences that make life enjoyable, what a dull dull world it would be if we all agreed with each other. i would be proud to stand at your side in any battle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

An excellent VVS site disappears
Replies
1
Views
546
Snautzer01
Kinda cool, in an interesting way....
Replies
2
Views
516
Gnomey
So, You're An Old Bastard? 😉
Replies
5
Views
698
N4521U
Belgians and their statues…
Replies
9
Views
653
Thumpalumpacus
Do you guys have any questions for gen z?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register