How is voting a right in the first place? Think about what voting is. It’s just majority control over the guys with guns, who then force the minority to live by majority rule. I don’t think the ignorant should vote. And there’s no reason to be apologetic about such a position. Voting is often the enemy of rights. Right to property, association, speech, keeping arms, etc. These rights seem to get trampled on by this “right to vote.” As if they weren’t even rights at all, only privileges based on the whim of a majority. If my rights as an individual are held as sacred, untouchable, I don’t even need a right to vote.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How is voting a right in the first place? Think about what voting is. It’s just majority control over the guys with guns, who then force the minority to live by the majority rule. I don’t think the ignorant should vote. And there’s no reason to be apologetic about such a position. Voting is often the enemy of rights. Right to property, association, speech, keeping arms, etc. These supposed rights seem to get trampled on by this “right to vote.” If my rights as an individual are held as sacred, untouchable, I don’t even need a right to vote. [/quote]
Watch out, your libertarianism is showing.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Sloth wrote:
How is voting a right in the first place? Think about what voting is. It’s just majority control over the guys with guns, who then force the minority to live by the majority rule. I don’t think the ignorant should vote. And there’s no reason to be apologetic about such a position. Voting is often the enemy of rights. Right to property, association, speech, keeping arms, etc. These supposed rights seem to get trampled on by this “right to vote.” If my rights as an individual are held as sacred, untouchable, I don’t even need a right to vote.
Watch out, your libertarianism is showing.[/quote]
Heh. No, trust me, I’m no libertarian. If I was to continue my line of thought you’d see I have no problem with using those men with guns to order society. That is, order society in such a way to maximize self governance and reliance. To me, man isn’t a perfect creature. Men, the masses, will take you up on your offer to allow them to do whatever the heck they want in their personal lives. But eventually, they’re going to demand that others cover the consequences of their lifestyles. From cradle to grave.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Sloth wrote:
How is voting a right in the first place? Think about what voting is. It’s just majority control over the guys with guns, who then force the minority to live by the majority rule. I don’t think the ignorant should vote. And there’s no reason to be apologetic about such a position. Voting is often the enemy of rights. Right to property, association, speech, keeping arms, etc. These supposed rights seem to get trampled on by this “right to vote.” If my rights as an individual are held as sacred, untouchable, I don’t even need a right to vote.
Watch out, your libertarianism is showing.
Heh. No, trust me, I’m no libertarian. If I was to continue my line of thought you’d see I have no problem with using those men with guns to order society. That is, order society in such a way to maximize self governance and reliance. To me, man isn’t a perfect creature. Men, the masses, will take you up on your offer to allow them to do whatever the heck they want in their personal lives. But eventually, they’re going to demand that others cover the consequences of their lifestyles. From cradle to grave.[/quote]
But what happens when the guy or gal in charge of those men with guns decides that they don’t like us to be self-reliant?
[quote]Dustin wrote:
But what happens when the guy or gal in charge of those men with guns decides that they don’t like us to be self-reliant?[/quote]
The same thing that would happen in a libertarian society. Or, in a libertarian society, a revolutionary figure outside of the libertarian government would eventually materialize to lead the non-voting masses to ‘economic justice.’ One way or another, they’ll get the vote back and their ‘fair’ share of the loot. Only a prudish people can be free. Though, only as long as they remain prudes. Otherwise, the masses are going to demand solutions to their liberal lifestyles. If you don’t give them what they want, or at least an avenue (voting) to get what they want, cities will burn.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Um, I’m pretty sure you said they are not entitled to a political opinion if they score poorly on that test. Which means that you think they should not have any influence if they do poorly. Which is to say they are less free.
STREEEEEEETCH!
He was saying that if you can’t identify basic political figures and facts, you should shut the fuck up about politics.
Just because you extrapolate everything into law and government doesn’t mean the rest of us do. Just because I say someone shouldn’t do something doesn’t mean I want that something to be ILLEGAL.
Maybe.
But Orion’s choice of words tells another story. He said that low-scorers shouldn’t be “entitled” to a political opinion. Seeing how voting is a right (A.K.A entitlement), it’s easy to deduce what it is Orion really meant.[/quote]
Well we could ask him, but why bother.
[quote]timbofirstblood wrote:
Here’s the quiz if anyone’s interested:
12/12 for me…[/quote]
100% for me…I rock.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Wow, great job guys. If you can score high on that, you MUST be smart…
No, but if you score low on that you are not entitled to a political opinion.
And it is kind of telling that those who have no idea about the basic shape of things tend to vote liberal.
It’s also telling that the most educated people tend to be liberal.
Conclusion? It’s hard to draw sweeping conclusions from things like this. Smart people don’t.
[/quote]
Like who? Anitia Dunn??? Cause she’s gigantic idiot.
OK, not much new here, mostly repeating the same tired inaccuracies that capitalists always do when faced with a massive failure of their system, so I’ll just be brief:
-you fail to mention that the Bush administration weakened the CRA in 2005, significantly lowering requirements on many institution, and exempting certain others
-you fail to mention that the institutions which were subject to CRA regulations did not do most of the subprime lending.
-you fail to mention the SEC’s relaxation of capital requirements in 2004, prompting a massive expansion of subprime lending and huge leverage increases
-you fail to mention that subprime lending was just as profitable as other lending ( http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/fipfedgfe/1997-7.htm )
-and you fail to mention that prime loans defaulted just as frequently and just as fast (more so in not a few cases) than subprime loans.
In short, you fail.
Love it or leave it, if you don’t like the way shit is done here, GTFO. I have seen things done in other places and I would still prefer to be here, without question at all.
[quote]phaethon wrote:I didn’t suggest they were. The bad loans were made because the banks knew they could just get rid of them.
I’m suggesting that the government helped create the market for asset based securities. The government put in place the framework for everything to fuck up.[/quote]
Except that they didn’t. Most of the loans didn’t meet their standards.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:some stuff
OK, not much new here, mostly repeating the same tired inaccuracies that capitalists always do when faced with a massive failure of their system, so I’ll just be brief:
-you fail to mention that the Bush administration weakened the CRA in 2005, significantly lowering requirements on many institution, and exempting certain others
-you fail to mention that the institutions which were subject to CRA regulations did not do most of the subprime lending.
-you fail to mention the SEC’s relaxation of capital requirements in 2004, prompting a massive expansion of subprime lending and huge leverage increases
-you fail to mention that subprime lending lending was just as profitable as other lending ( EconPapers: The Community Reinvestment Act and the profitability of mortgage-oriented banks )
-and you fail to mention that prime loans defaulted just as frequently and just as fast (more so in not a few cases) than subprime loans.
In short, you fail.[/quote]
There’s little left to waste any more time on with you, but first, as an initial matter, I haven’t overemphasized CRA - it was part of a larger problem - so your fixation on it is what your professors should have explained to as a “straw man” fallacy…
…but my favorite? Your “econ paper” describing the awesome awesomeness of profitability of CRA loans is, well, dated July 1997 - a decade before the credit crisis occurred.
Well done. Such airtight scholarship continues to define the high standards we have come to expect from our resident kept student socialist.
Translation: I’m wrong and I know it, so I’m going to try to save face here by insulting you some more and then use a lot of words to say nothing. Got it.
Not really sure what you’re referring to here…
Except that it’s fairly easy to find lists of things that Fox gets wrong. I was just mentioning a fact widely known by anyone who doesn’t watch Fox News. My bad. Didn’t mean to strike a nerve.
Wow. And they say leftists have no sense of humor…
The cooling trend has been thoroughly debunked. I’m not surprised you hadn’t heard.
Yellow cake is not a WMD. And we found some years-old degraded chemical weapons. If that was the problem, we should have invaded years ago. It was a flimsy excuse desperately trumpeted in the absence of any significant find.
OK.
Sorry, I was operating under the assumption that they were attempting to garner votes from constituents who felt similarly.
[quote]Mao and Chavez are their heroes, ect. ect. ect. Hell rev right is a liberal, I guess you believe all the nonsense he spouts.
[/quote]
First of all, I’m assuming that you get the first idea from Fox’s reporting on the matter, in which statements are shamelessly manipulated to say something the individual never actually said. So much for “more accurately reporting the facts.” Second of all, you seem to think I’m a liberal.
[quote]pat wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Wow, great job guys. If you can score high on that, you MUST be smart…
No, but if you score low on that you are not entitled to a political opinion.
And it is kind of telling that those who have no idea about the basic shape of things tend to vote liberal.
It’s also telling that the most educated people tend to be liberal.
Conclusion? It’s hard to draw sweeping conclusions from things like this. Smart people don’t.
Like who? Anitia Dunn??? Cause she’s gigantic idiot.[/quote]
Unlike yourself, heh.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Love it or leave it, if you don’t like the way shit is done here, GTFO. I have seen things done in other places and I would still prefer to be here, without question at all.
[/quote]
Ah yes, this gem. Maybe I’ll see you on the train out of here, seeing as how you clearly don’t like the way Obama is doing things, I’m sure you’ll remain consistent with your principles and leave rather than protesting.
Too bad for you, in your haste to lay blame anywhere but on the doorstep of private enterprise, you neglect to consider the fact that, since the CRA in its original form was passed in 1977 (and thus it is so clear that it could have had nothing whatsoever to do with this crisis, that even the most imaginative conservative “thinkers” haven’t bothered to try to malign it), any harmful consequences would have to be due to the changes made in 1995 under Clinton. This report shows these changes did not impair the profitability of banks.
Thanks.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:HAH! YOU ARE THE ONE THAT STARTED MAKING BIAS CLAIMS! You start claiming bias and then spew some rhetoric about me claiming bias?
Not really sure what you’re referring to here…
[/quote]
You brought up media bias.
Can I see this list?
Do you know how ridiculous it is for you to claim you know how bad fox is because, of all reasons, you don’t watch it? (I don’t watch it either, i don’t even have cable)
I’m just pointing out your typical way of pursuing an argument. But good retort, I see what you mean, you presented tons of quantifiable evidence.
link?
Way to avoid the actual subject at hand. The fact that all the intelligence agencies got it wrong and it wasn’t a white house screw up.
Good retort.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:2: You cannot attribute the beliefs of one person to the entire ideology
Sorry, I was operating under the assumption that they were attempting to garner votes from constituents who felt similarly.
[/quote]
ok. but that is a far cry from there to “conservatives deny evolution”. Liberals are pro-abortion => liberals eat babies.
I don’t watch fox. I have however listened to speeches from high level administration officials claim to admire mao and even talk about bringing down the American way of life with no news intermediary. But good attempt to attack the source because you lose the factual argument.