The fact that everyone else does not believe the guy in the rubber room is Napoleon does not imply a double standard.
It is not about the desire of his heart, it is the actual words he said. He said some people should not vote, I said the exact same thing, trying to make it "sound" different is simply silly. As usual this is all about Joe trying to play "gotcha" and later getting his words tossed back at him and he is not man enough to admit it.
Hm. Sounds simple enough. Oh, I get it. He said that you shouldn't limit who CAN vote. Hm. Haha, ok. You must not know how to comprehend what you read. Did he once try to advocate limiting who had the right to vote, Times? Except he didn't say that. You're putting your foot in your mouth trying to put words in his. He didn't "SAY" that. At all. You fail at reading. So YOU said voting should be limited. He never advocated a ruling class, you did. I've quoted what he said VERBATIM, proving you're reading it incorrectly and attributing things to him he didn't say/do/believe in. You're WRONG. Try to grasp that concept. Hm. Sounds like Joe DIDN'T want to limit who could vote. You did. EXACT QUOTE. And that's word to your mother. Peace.
As you all saw long ago and joker proved in the previous post what separates most of us from an insufferable dumbass, like TJ. Where, unlike him, we all have at least the amount of spelling, reading and comprehension skills required to graduate 6th grade in most school districts in the United States, when proven incompetent, he tries to justify his ignorance in verbal/writing skills, by deflecting, and to cling to ignorant, juvenile concepts like this... <p.s. coment has two "m"'s and what is a "staert"?> This comes down to the mature, "He started it." defense. Where most of us see the futility on getting a complete moron to say the most and inferior debater to say the least, like TJ, to see the folly of his argument, sometimes means you just take the high ground and "don't reply'. Now, a lesser person like TJ, often mistakes this as "dodging". As we all know from experience, he is almost always, if not always wrong and can't see just how obtuse he is.
Direct quote and no other way to take it than he believes some people should not vote. The reason we both gave for this is different, but the desire for some people to vote and other people to nbot vote is exactly the same. All the excuses and personal attacks do not change what he said. You are wasting a lot of time on things that have nothing to do with the fact that Joe is a hypocrite.
He believes some people shouldn't vote of their own volition. You believe in limiting who has the ability to vote. The two are totally different, kid.
Bull, Joe clearly said he felt some people should not vote because of the "way" they would vote, that is the exact same reason I offered.
Okay, I admit I took this to mean the people would not vote right because in your opinion they were ignorant and uninformed. So I ask you to explain and if I was wrong I will gladly say I am sorry. So you mention being ignorant and unformed as your reason some people should not vote so if that does not mean they will vote incorrectly what did you mean? How was being ignorant and unformed related to how they will vote mean they should not vote in your opinion?
is this really all that hard a concept for you to grasp TJ??? or is this another of your "social experiments"???
He'll just say that "JOE SAID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T VOTE, WHICH MEANS THEY CAN'T!" Then proceed to tell us how wrong we are because he can't read the difference between "shouldn't" and "can't". TJ, let me put it to you another way: There are a lot of people who say Imam Feisal shouldn't build what he's building where he's building it. However, that doesn't mean they can't build it there.
And that is the same point I made, the voters will vote for who gives them the most "free" Government money, not vote based on their knowledge of the issues and what is right for America in general.
And there is my point, if you guys would stop with the automatic knee-jerk attacks and actually read what I am saying you would see I am saying exactly what IWS is saying and for the exact same reason. The direction the groups vote uninformed is different, I give you that, but I expressed that I did not want certain people to vote because they would vote responsibly, IWS said he did not want people to vote because they would not vote responsibly, we agree completely on the concept of some people not voting. My only issue is when I said some peopel should not vote, Joe tried to take me to the woodshed saying it was wrong to say some people should not vote and what would result is a "ruling class". Well if IWS wants to set a standard for voting to be only those who meet up to his standard of education then is that not also creating a "ruling class"? By the way, just to give context, IWS did not even vote in the last Presidential election. He is the kind of guy I was talking about needing to get out and vote. People like IWS who usually is fairly conservative tend to also neglect their duty to vote and help put conservative minded people in office. Many times they get discouraged because their choices are not "perfect" but by being discouraged, they actually help the Progressives win elections. If most Americans voted, no matter what their political leaning were, the politicians would listen to the public more.
No, it isn't the same concept. I believe someone who is not informed on the issues/candidates/platform/etc... should not vote on those things because they could be negating the vote of someone who is informed. I don't care if they agree with me or not. I do however believe that person, even in their ignorance, should be allowed to vote ignorant. You advocated for people who don't pay taxes should lose their right to vote... Big difference. Should not vote = my view = by choice Should not be allowed to vote = TJ's view = by force That said and on a side note, somewhat related... People also should be aware that if you do show up to vote because you are informed on one issue/candidate/initiative on the ballot doesn't mean you are obligated to vote on those you aren't informed on. You can leave parts of the ballot blank. I do it all the time. I don't always know about the candidates for our local public utility boards. I leave that part blank. I don't always know about who should be on the local airport authority board. I leave that part blank. etc...
Semantics IWS. You said you believe some people should not vote. I said some people should not vote, the intent is the same, your trying to hide behind an extra word or two instead of looking at the spirit of what we both said. Both of us offer examples of how we feel some people should not vote. You believe some people should not vote if they don't meet your standard of education, I believe some people should not vote if they are only going to vote for whoever will give them the most "free money". Uour reasons are different, but our point is exactly the same....... Some people should not vote. I say it, you say it, we agree Joe, lol.
So in your mind, there is no difference between someone who says, "I don't think it's necessary for people to have firearms." and someone who says, "I think the government should ban and confiscate firearms."
That is not what you said so the comparison is irrelevant. You said some people should not vote, you seem to be trying to hide behind how that is accomplished but how else do you stop people from voting if not through the government Joe? Maybe you were just speaking out of frustration Joe? Maybe you were just saying how you wished it to be but would never actually want that if you could force it to happen? Well guess what Joe, that is exactly what I said and you would not accept that I was just wishful thinking so how is it different for you now that you are talking about not wanting some people to vote? Hypocrite.
It is the same thing and a very relevant comparison. I have a belief but don't want to limit anyone's rights. You have a belief but want to limit who has the right to do something. Just like one person has the belief that people don't need firearms but doesn't want to take their right to own one away. The other person has the belief that the government should decide who can possess a firearm by limiting the right to do so. I advocated personal "choice". You advocated government "force".
