KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I haven't heard this Savage guy, but in my (limited) experience Randi Rhoads isn't exactly the posterchild for non-biased, rational political discourse, either. in essence, they are about the same Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 I haven't heard this Savage guy, but in my (limited) experience Randi Rhoads isn't exactly the posterchild for non-biased, rational political discourse, either. in essence, they are about the same They are not the same.....I have never heard Randi Roads preach to her listeners that you cannot exist in a sane would without God as your sole director. God needs to be in your life. He also states that the worst drug out there is pot. How if you think its OK to smoke than you are snowed. Savage supports Bush…..potentially the most evil and destructive person in our era, and he is a fear monger. Roads does not support Bush These people cannot be more different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 savage does not support bush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 savage does not support bush He has some of the same ideas....he thinks Islamic fundalism is seeping into this country and he is BY FAR the biggest fear monger on radio or TV……and lets face it……he is broadcast by FOX NEWS……need I say more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 sharing some ideas doesn't constitute generalized support. he slams bush all the time. is he really broadcast by foxnews? really? seems you hear him say that foxnews won't have him on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 sharing some ideas doesn't constitute generalized support. he slams bush all the time. is he really broadcast by foxnews? really? seems you hear him say that foxnews won't have him on. he's a "shock jock" with a shtick saying all kinds of outrageous stuff. he and Randi Rhoads are two sides of the same coin. Anne Coulter is another one - as is Michael Moore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I haven't heard this Savage guy, but in my (limited) experience Randi Rhoads isn't exactly the posterchild for non-biased, rational political discourse, either. in essence, they are about the same Your essence, not mine. One salient difference is that Michael Weiner (his real name) is yet another chickenhawk that never managed to serve in the military, even though he is of prime Vietnam war age. Randi Rhodes enlisted in the Air Force at age 18, and served in the reserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I haven't heard this Savage guy, but in my (limited) experience Randi Rhoads isn't exactly the posterchild for non-biased, rational political discourse, either. in essence, they are about the same Your essence, not mine. One salient difference is that Michael Weiner (his real name) is yet another chickenhawk that never managed to serve in the military, even though he is of prime Vietnam war age. Randi Rhodes enlisted in the Air Force at age 18, and served in the reserves. BFD. She's a shrill lunatic. How people like them get on the air is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 how can you say they are the same? one is a boy and one is a girl!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I think we need to get back to the original question of voting privileges. (I have not read all 5 pages of this thread.) Coming from the moderately right wing point of view I say it is a bad, a VERY bad idea. Voting privileges are extended to every US citizen over the age of 18. These privileges can be revoked for various reasons such as a dishonorable discharge form military service, or I think convicted felons are not allowed to vote, but may have their privileges retuned, not so sure on the convicted felon issue. My point is this. To revoke voting privileges based on source of income opens up a Pandora’s Box that should remain close. If we can revoke voting privileges based on the source of income then we can do revoke on other issues. I am surprised this suggestion might come from the right. I would expect it to come from the left because the left wing using the ACLU has manipulated the courts to write legislation. OOPs, there I go getting off the issue of voting privileges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 I think we need to get back to the original question of voting privileges. (I have not read all 5 pages of this thread.) Coming from the moderately right wing point of view I say it is a bad, a VERY bad idea. Voting privileges are extended to every US citizen over the age of 18. These privileges can be revoked for various reasons such as a dishonorable discharge form military service, or I think convicted felons are not allowed to vote, but may have their privileges retuned, not so sure on the convicted felon issue. My point is this. To revoke voting privileges based on source of income opens up a Pandora’s Box that should remain close. If we can revoke voting privileges based on the source of income then we can do revoke on other issues. I am surprised this suggestion might come from the right. I would expect it to come from the left because the left wing using the ACLU has manipulated the courts to write legislation. OOPs, there I go getting off the issue of voting privileges. Thank you for getting us back on topic.....you make some very valid points. Would I be wrong in thinking that it is a conflict of interest to be able to vote only were the gravy train is coming from? How does that better our country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I have a feeling some of these kids post here: gFGit_tZDqs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I think we need to get back to the original question of voting privileges. (I have not read all 5 pages of this thread.) Coming from the moderately right wing point of view I say it is a bad, a VERY bad idea. Voting privileges are extended to every US citizen over the age of 18. These privileges can be revoked for various reasons such as a dishonorable discharge form military service, or I think convicted felons are not allowed to vote, but may have their privileges retuned, not so sure on the convicted felon issue. My point is this. To revoke voting privileges based on source of income opens up a Pandora’s Box that should remain close. If we can revoke voting privileges based on the source of income then we can do revoke on other issues. I am surprised this suggestion might come from the right. I would expect it to come from the left because the left wing using the ACLU has manipulated the courts to write legislation. OOPs, there I go getting off the issue of voting privileges. Thank you for getting us back on topic.....you make some very valid points. Would I be wrong in thinking that it is a conflict of interest to be able to vote only were the gravy train is coming from? How does that better our country? there's no right and wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 there's no right and wrong! "All things are permitted" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I think we need to get back to the original question of voting privileges. (I have not read all 5 pages of this thread.) Coming from the moderately right wing point of view I say it is a bad, a VERY bad idea. Voting privileges are extended to every US citizen over the age of 18. These privileges can be revoked for various reasons such as a dishonorable discharge form military service, or I think convicted felons are not allowed to vote, but may have their privileges retuned, not so sure on the convicted felon issue. My point is this. To revoke voting privileges based on source of income opens up a Pandora’s Box that should remain close. If we can revoke voting privileges based on the source of income then we can do revoke on other issues. I am surprised this suggestion might come from the right. I would expect it to come from the left because the left wing using the ACLU has manipulated the courts to write legislation. OOPs, there I go getting off the issue of voting privileges. Thank you for getting us back on topic.....you make some very valid points. Would I be wrong in thinking that it is a conflict of interest to be able to vote only were the gravy train is coming from? How does that better our country? 50% of a two party democracy is voting people out, or voting for more money for me. Ours is not a perfect system, so it does need to be continually tweaked. However, we must show prudence on how and where to tweak our system to make it work well. We SHOULD vote for what we feel is best for America, and we should our choices for our leaders accordingly. However, there will be those who vote for whoever is going to fatten their own pocketbook. That can not be helped. I guess if we disallow ALL those whose income source is the government then we are saying ALL whose income source is from the government are only fattening their own pocket books. AND it might be true that all whose income source is from the government are not thinking about what is best for America, however, once we open the door to revoke their voting privileges, then we will have tweaked the system and the repercussions will be far reaching. More that I am willing to risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 I think we need to get back to the original question of voting privileges. (I have not read all 5 pages of this thread.) Coming from the moderately right wing point of view I say it is a bad, a VERY bad idea. Voting privileges are extended to every US citizen over the age of 18. These privileges can be revoked for various reasons such as a dishonorable discharge form military service, or I think convicted felons are not allowed to vote, but may have their privileges retuned, not so sure on the convicted felon issue. My point is this. To revoke voting privileges based on source of income opens up a Pandora’s Box that should remain close. If we can revoke voting privileges based on the source of income then we can do revoke on other issues. I am surprised this suggestion might come from the right. I would expect it to come from the left because the left wing using the ACLU has manipulated the courts to write legislation. OOPs, there I go getting off the issue of voting privileges. Thank you for getting us back on topic.....you make some very valid points. Would I be wrong in thinking that it is a conflict of interest to be able to vote only were the gravy train is coming from? How does that better our country? 50% of a two party democracy is voting people out, or voting for more money for me. Ours is not a perfect system, so it does need to be continually tweaked. However, we must show prudence on how and where to tweak our system to make it work well. We SHOULD vote for what we feel is best for America, and we should our choices for our leaders accordingly. However, there will be those who vote for whoever is going to fatten their own pocketbook. That can not be helped. I guess if we disallow ALL those whose income source is the government then we are saying ALL whose income source is from the government are only fattening their own pocket books. AND it might be true that all whose income source is from the government are not thinking about what is best for America, however, once we open the door to revoke their voting privileges, then we will have tweaked the system and the repercussions will be far reaching. More that I am willing to risk. I suppose your voting privledge would only go away while you are on a govy check.....once you stand on your own feet again....you get to vote again.... In hindsight and after the non sprayer commentary.....it does sound like a fairly fool hardy endeavor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I like capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 personally, I prefer good whiskey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 personally, I prefer good whiskey. me too. what's your poison of choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) is W wrong... or is it just your opinion? Who are you asking this too? In my opinion W is a frickin nut case who has lost all perspective of being a human. i can handle that Mr. Bush shares at least one human perspective with the rest of us. Occasionally, he must poo. Edited July 20, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Yeah, but he doesn't get whiskey. nyah nyah nyah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 personally, I prefer good whiskey. and beer for my horses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I think we need to get back to the original question of voting privileges. (I have not read all 5 pages of this thread.) Coming from the moderately right wing point of view I say it is a bad, a VERY bad idea. Voting privileges are extended to every US citizen over the age of 18. These privileges can be revoked for various reasons such as a dishonorable discharge form military service, or I think convicted felons are not allowed to vote, but may have their privileges retuned, not so sure on the convicted felon issue. My point is this. To revoke voting privileges based on source of income opens up a Pandora’s Box that should remain close. If we can revoke voting privileges based on the source of income then we can do revoke on other issues. I am surprised this suggestion might come from the right. I would expect it to come from the left because the left wing using the ACLU has manipulated the courts to write legislation. OOPs, there I go getting off the issue of voting privileges. Thank you for getting us back on topic.....you make some very valid points. Would I be wrong in thinking that it is a conflict of interest to be able to vote only were the gravy train is coming from? How does that better our country? 50% of a two party democracy is voting people out, or voting for more money for me. Ours is not a perfect system, so it does need to be continually tweaked. However, we must show prudence on how and where to tweak our system to make it work well. We SHOULD vote for what we feel is best for America, and we should our choices for our leaders accordingly. However, there will be those who vote for whoever is going to fatten their own pocketbook. That can not be helped. I guess if we disallow ALL those whose income source is the government then we are saying ALL whose income source is from the government are only fattening their own pocket books. AND it might be true that all whose income source is from the government are not thinking about what is best for America, however, once we open the door to revoke their voting privileges, then we will have tweaked the system and the repercussions will be far reaching. More that I am willing to risk. I suppose your voting privledge would only go away while you are on a govy check.....once you stand on your own feet again....you get to vote again.... In hindsight and after the non sprayer commentary.....it does sound like a fairly fool hardy endeavor. I just came out of a meeting with a lawyer. In that meeting I asked him, “What is the difference between a right and a privilege?” His answer was as I thought; a right can not be revoked where as a privilege can. So I asked about the right to vote, and if is it a right or a privilege. He pulled a copy of the constitution and showed me at least two amendments on the RIGHT to vote. Voting is clearly a right. It would take a constitutional amendment to revoke that right by a specific group of people. However, amendments are extremely vague in order to allow for interpretation by the court and legislation. Therefore if we were to revoke the voting privileges of one group for say their primary source of income was from the government, then it would be very easy to extend that to say someone who uses public lands for personal adventures such as climbing. However, the more important point he brought up was the original spirit of our constitution was to protect the people from a federal government that might be to strong. I feel revoking voting privileges of any group of people would be going against the original spirit of our constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I like capitalism. It works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 is W wrong... or is it just your opinion? Who are you asking this too? In my opinion W is a frickin nut case who has lost all perspective of being a human. i can handle that Mr. Bush shares at least one human perspective with the rest of us. Occasionally, he must poo. Yeah....and he does it right onto the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.