The root of all evil - Free Stuff.

[grumpyMSG]

Oh God, don't tell me you really believe they "hate us for our freedom"?

This reminds me of this old thing, "if you walk into a bar and get your ass kicked after five minutes, they were probably buttholes....if you walk into fifteen bars and the same thing happens every single time, well, chances are you're the butthole"

Point being of course its our actions that get us attacked; they don't happen without reason.

People don't fly planes into buildings for fun. Those attacks were a direct response to our presence in Saudi Arabia and support of Israel, as Osama himself said in many of his tapes.

I don't believe that they "Hate us for freedom". I believe because of their "Wahabi" style of Islam, If you don't believe like them, you are an infidel, and the only good infidel is a dead infidel.

To your second point, given most of the responses you receive on this forum, which category do you see yourself in?

As for Osama Bin Laden, I believe his hatred for the U.S. became what it was right after Iraq invaded Kuwait. He met with the Saudi King and volunteered to lead an Islamic Arab army against Saddam Hussein's forces. He felt that it was wrong to have Infidels defending the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. It was basically because the U.S. came to the aid of the Saudis at the Saudi's request. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait under Saddam Hussein on August 2, 1990, put the Saudi kingdom and the House of Saud at risk, with Iraqi forces on the Saudi border and Saddam's appeal to pan-Arabism potentially inciting internal dissent. Bin Laden met with King Fahd, and Saudi Defense Minister Sultan, telling them not to depend on non-Muslim assistance from the United States and others, offering to help defend Saudi Arabia with his Arab legion. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed, and the Saudi monarchy invited the deployment of U.S. forces in Saudi territory.[83] Bin Laden publicly denounced Saudi dependence on the U.S. military, arguing the two holiest shrines of Islam, Mecca and Medina, the cities in which the Prophet Mohamed received and recited God's message, should only be defended by Muslims. Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led them to attempt to silence him. The U.S. 82nd Airborne Division landed in north-eastern Saudi city of Dhahran and was deployed in the desert barely 400 miles from Medina.[82]

[Kreutz]

If it was just due to Wahabi Islam they'd have been using black power suicide vests to suicide bomb Westerners right off the bat, in the 18th century when it first started. IIRC their first strikes were against invading Egyptians.

Instead they didn't start making noise in the West until the later 20th century, why did they wait about 200 years to suddenly loathe the West?

I'm telling you, there is a cause and effect relationship at work here. Its not solely about ideology, rather action and reaction.

Just to slip in a tangent about the Iraq war, do keep in mind its our Saudi "allies" that fund and export Wahabi Islam. Totally smart of us to give them billions and shatter Iraq, which did serve as a check to them in Iraq since the "political prisoners" we loosed on Baghdad were Wahabi terrorists.

To your second point, given most of the responses you receive on this forum, which category do you see yourself in?

I really don't understand the question...do I think I am infidel or are you asking me about responses from other people here?

[ratherfish]

Watch out infadel!

[grumpyMSG]

I really don't understand the question...do I think I am infidel or are you asking me about responses from other people here?

I was talking about:

This reminds me of this old thing, "if you walk into a bar and get your ass kicked after five minutes, they were probably buttholes....if you walk into fifteen bars and the same thing happens every single time, well, chances are you're the butthole.

Given the responses you elicit here, with a lot of your posts, are we the "buttholes" or are you the "butthole"?
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

A study conducted by the NGO Freedom House found Wahhabi publications in mosques in the United States. These publications included statements that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way", but "hate them for their religion … for Allah's sake", that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century", and that Shia and certain Sunni Muslims were infidels.[40][41]

I don't generally like to quote wikipedia, but this information's source is footnoted. I don't agree with your statement about unleashing Wahabi "Political Prisoners" on Iraq, most of them were Shiite if I remember correctly, not Sunni. As for our oil dollars paying to export violent Islam, I think you are right, just like our elicit drug money was used to destabilize several South and Central American nations in the '80s through today, like El Salvador and Columbia.

[Kreutz]

I really don't understand the question...do I think I am infidel or are you asking me about responses from other people here?

I was talking about:

This reminds me of this old thing, "if you walk into a bar and get your ass kicked after five minutes, they were probably buttholes....if you walk into fifteen bars and the same thing happens every single time, well, chances are you're the butthole.

Given the responses you elicit here, with a lot of your posts, are we the "buttholes" or are you the "butthole"?

I seem to get responses all over the chart...some have PM'd or e-mailed to I guess give me a non-public pat on the back and some kind words for my posts...I'll let them stay anonymous! Don't wanna shame anyone after all.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi
A study conducted by the NGO Freedom House found Wahhabi publications in mosques in the United States. These publications included statements that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way", but "hate them for their religion … for Allah's sake", that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century", and that Shia and certain Sunni Muslims were infidels.[40][41]

I haven't read that anywhere, but it sound right in what I'd expect from them I think the last sentence is an important one, it reinforces the adage "the true fanatic fights alone."

When everyone is your enemy, you have no allies.

Barring increasingly botched attacks in the west, do you think that strain of Islam is going to be a threat again?

[ratherfish]

liberals are close fellers that way....


You guys "pat" each other frequently.

[SHMIV]

So it appears to me things went from too restrictive to so unrestricted that fraud and abuse is rampant. I would argue that in today’s technical world, any citizen, no matter what color the skin, should be required to demonstrate literacy to be allowed to vote. And I would also argue that any person on welfare should be denied the right to vote. But the big rub comes for me on government employees. Should THEY be allowed to vote?

Regardless of the original intent of the literacy requirement, it was still a brilliant idea. When one casts a vote, that vote touches everyone. One should be able to display some level of intelligence before being entrusted with such a responsibility. Literacy, of course, is not just the ability to read, but being able to understand what you have just read. I'm reminded of this little social experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUP9Jm9SqvY

I've been saying, for years, that people on welfare ought not be allowed to vote. No one on the government payroll should vote; it is a conflict of interest. If one is on welfare, the chance is great that he will vote for what appears to be best for his wallet right now, without regard to how it may hurt himself or others tomorrow. Same with government employees. People, by nature, are selfish creatures.

[joeshmo]

So it appears to me things went from too restrictive to so unrestricted that fraud and abuse is rampant. I would argue that in today’s technical world, any citizen, no matter what color the skin, should be required to demonstrate literacy to be allowed to vote. And I would also argue that any person on welfare should be denied the right to vote. But the big rub comes for me on government employees. Should THEY be allowed to vote?

Regardless of the original intent of the literacy requirement, it was still a brilliant idea. When one casts a vote, that vote touches everyone. One should be able to display some level of intelligence before being entrusted with such a responsibility. Literacy, of course, is not just the ability to read, but being able to understand what you have just read. I'm reminded of this little social experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUP9Jm9SqvY

I've been saying, for years, that people on welfare ought not be allowed to vote. No one on the government payroll should vote; it is a conflict of interest. If one is on welfare, the chance is great that he will vote for what appears to be best for his wallet right now, without regard to how it may hurt himself or others tomorrow. Same with government employees. People, by nature, are selfish creatures.

with that ideology we might as well do away with the constitution as well... Every law abiding citizen should be able to vote period...

[SHMIV]

Every law abiding citizen should be able to vote period...

Sure... looks like that plan has worked out excellent, so far.

[joeshmo]

Every law abiding citizen should be able to vote period...

Sure... looks like that plan has worked out excellent, so far.

HA!! You got me on that one... But next time quote my enire post and dont selectivly take what you want to hear.. Your idea is to take voting rights away clear and simple...

[SHMIV]

HA!! You got me on that one... But next time quote my enire post and dont selectivly take what you want to hear.. Your idea is to take voting rights away clear and simple...

In the interest of clarity, I only quoted the portion that was relevant to my retort.

That thing about disposing of the Constitution was utterly silly, so I was content to simply roll my eyes and shake my head, and think nothing of it. But, since it was meaningful to you:

The folks that wrote and approved the document were apparently quite comfortable with placing limitations on voting privileges. While the idea that one must own property to vote is a bit out-dated, limitations still have their values, and the reasoning behind it is clear. The idea is to keep folks from voting if they are incapable of making wise decisions and being responsible, or are unwilling to be productive.

A voting welfare recipient is merely some guy submitting his demands in regards to how my money should be spent to benefit him. He has absolutely no right to do that.

As to the final sentence, I don't want to take away voting rights, at all. I want to place limits on voting privileges.

[grumpyMSG]

In the interest of clarity, I only quoted the portion that was relevant to my retort.

That thing about disposing of the Constitution was utterly silly, so I was content to simply roll my eyes and shake my head, and think nothing of it. But, since it was meaningful to you:

The folks that wrote and approved the document were apparently quite comfortable with placing limitations on voting privileges. While the idea that one must own property to vote is a bit out-dated, limitations still have their values, and the reasoning behind it is clear. The idea is to keep folks from voting if they are incapable of making wise decisions and being responsible, or are unwilling to be productive.

A voting welfare recipient is merely some guy submitting his demands in regards to how my money should be spent to benefit him. He has absolutely no right to do that.

As to the final sentence, I don't want to take away voting rights, at all. I want to place limits on voting privileges.

So let me see if I understand your position, in the late 1700s the cry was "No taxation without representation!" and you want to change it to "No taxation deserves no representation" for 2012?

I can see where that could be considered a reasonable, logical and even a "fair" position...

[ShotgunBlast]

If I'm allowed to vote based on my interests in mind, and you are allowed to vote based on your interests in mind, isn't it only fair that those on welfare are allowed to vote based on their interests in mind? Granted you may not agree with their interests, but isn't that on you to get more people out to vote that support your interests?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[joeshmo]

HA!! You got me on that one... But next time quote my enire post and dont selectivly take what you want to hear.. Your idea is to take voting rights away clear and simple...

In the interest of clarity, I only quoted the portion that was relevant to my retort.

That thing about disposing of the Constitution was utterly silly, so I was content to simply roll my eyes and shake my head, and think nothing of it. But, since it was meaningful to you:

The folks that wrote and approved the document were apparently quite comfortable with placing limitations on voting privileges. While the idea that one must own property to vote is a bit out-dated, limitations still have their values, and the reasoning behind it is clear. The idea is to keep folks from voting if they are incapable of making wise decisions and being responsible, or are unwilling to be productive.

A voting welfare recipient is merely some guy submitting his demands in regards to how my money should be spent to benefit him. He has absolutely no right to do that.

As to the final sentence, I don't want to take away voting rights, at all. I want to place limits on voting privileges.

The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan would agree with your position. They too have tried to disenfranchise people they don't like, as well. That is why we have the Voting Rights Act, which runs contrary to your position. The idea is not to have elitists only have a vote, but all citizens, unless they are convicted felons, express their voice, and vote. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php


http://www.justice.gov/crt/​about/vot/intro/intro_b.php
www.justice.gov

[SHMIV]

If I'm allowed to vote based on my interests in mind, and you are allowed to vote based on your interests in mind, isn't it only fair that those on welfare are allowed to vote based on their interests in mind? Granted you may not agree with their interests, but isn't that on you to get more people out to vote that support your interests?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Your vote, itself, is not based on the interests in your mind. The placement of your vote is.

When the nation first began, one was allowed to vote based on the fact that he owned property. That property was taxed, so the owner was given a vote, or a say, in how the nation was run, since he was partially financing it. Not only that, but the property was normally beneficial to the rest of society. Some property produced cotton for clothing, others held cattle for milk or meat, etc. It was also generally assumed that the property owner had some degree of intelligence and a sense of responsibility.

A large number of welfare recipients are habitual freebie grabbers, and offer absolutely nothing positive to the rest of society. They also tend to be willfully ignorant and irresponsible. Why the hell should they be given a right to have any influence over the way things are done? They have have not earned it. I'm not even asking that voters be required to pay taxes (as Grumpy suggested, though that would be fine, too); I'm simply stating that folks that take from the government ought not be allowed to vote.

I will grant that there are those who fall on hard times and utilize the government assistance to get back on their feet. If voting means that much to them, then they will be further motivated back to their feet by a suspension of their voting privileges. If voting means nothing to them, then a suspension of their voting privileges won't matter, anyway.

[joeshmo]

If I'm allowed to vote based on my interests in mind, and you are allowed to vote based on your interests in mind, isn't it only fair that those on welfare are allowed to vote based on their interests in mind? Granted you may not agree with their interests, but isn't that on you to get more people out to vote that support your interests?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Your vote, itself, is not based on the interests in your mind. The placement of your vote is.

When the nation first began, one was allowed to vote based on the fact that he owned property. That property was taxed, so the owner was given a vote, or a say, in how the nation was run, since he was partially financing it. Not only that, but the property was normally beneficial to the rest of society. Some property produced cotton for clothing, others held cattle for milk or meat, etc. It was also generally assumed that the property owner had some degree of intelligence and a sense of responsibility.

A large number of welfare recipients are habitual freebie grabbers, and offer absolutely nothing positive to the rest of society. They also tend to be willfully ignorant and irresponsible. Why the hell should they be given a right to have any influence over the way things are done? They have have not earned it. I'm not even asking that voters be required to pay taxes (as Grumpy suggested, though that would be fine, too); I'm simply stating that folks that take from the government ought not be allowed to vote.

I will grant that there are those who fall on hard times and utilize the government assistance to get back on their feet. If voting means that much to them, then they will be further motivated back to their feet by a suspension of their voting privileges. If voting means nothing to them, then a suspension of their voting privileges won't matter, anyway.

when the nation began is not relevant, the nation over time continued the emancipation started in 1776, to this very day. Freedom is a process, and we have continued to make more people free, and part of the voice, which is good, as opposed to trying and stifle those we don't like. They have rights, too. If you want a system which tries to muffle the vote, and stifle people, try Kandahar. The Taliban does exactly that. This is America, where we love freedom. Sorry you don't love freedom.

[SHMIV]

The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan would agree with your position. They too have tried to disenfranchise people they don't like, as well. That is why we have the Voting Rights Act, which runs contrary to your position. The idea is not to have elitists only have a vote, but all citizens, unless they are convicted felons, express their voice, and vote. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php


http://www.justice.gov/crt/​about/vot/intro/intro_b.php
http://www.justice.gov

You'll forgive me, Joe, for removing my quote from yours; it seemed redundant and space consuming.

I wondered how long it would take for one to compare me to a group of racists in silly hats. Gotta do better than that to get my goat.

I'm not advocating the disenfranchisement of people that I dislike, I'm advocating the disenfranchisement of people that are not contributing to society. My personal feelings towards them are entirely irrelevant. (And, your assumption of how I personally feel towards them is not entirely correct, either.)

I am aware of the Voting Rights Act. You bring it up as if something that made it to the law books MUST be right. I could tell that it ran contrary to me just by it's name. Voting rights are like jackalopes; they only ones that exist were artificially manufactured. Voting was originally intended as a privilege, not a right. That's why voting didn't make it to the Bill of Rights.

Further, I don't see any evidence that letting everyone vote has accomplished anything positive.

[joeshmo]

The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan would agree with your position. They too have tried to disenfranchise people they don't like, as well. That is why we have the Voting Rights Act, which runs contrary to your position. The idea is not to have elitists only have a vote, but all citizens, unless they are convicted felons, express their voice, and vote. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php


http://www.justice.gov/crt/​about/vot/intro/intro_b.php
http://www.justice.gov

You'll forgive me, Joe, for removing my quote from yours; it seemed redundant and space consuming.

I wondered how long it would take for one to compare me to a group of racists in silly hats. Gotta do better than that to get my goat.

I'm not advocating the disenfranchisement of people that I dislike, I'm advocating the disenfranchisement of people that are not contributing to society. My personal feelings towards them are entirely irrelevant. (And, your assumption of how I personally feel towards them is not entirely correct, either.)

I am aware of the Voting Rights Act. You bring it up as if something that made it to the law books MUST be right. I could tell that it ran contrary to me just by it's name. Voting rights are like jackalopes; they only ones that exist were artificially manufactured. Voting was originally intended as a privilege, not a right. That's why voting didn't make it to the Bill of Rights.

Further, I don't see any evidence that letting everyone vote has accomplished anything positive.

no where in the constitution, nor law, is there a requirement to vote based on "productivity" to enable that means to disenfranchise the elderly, and the disabled, including veterans who have shed their blood, so this kind of prattle can be posted. Shameful. Shame on you. And it violates not only the voting rights act, but the civil rights act...You have not thought out your shallow position. You have the ideology of a cross burner...You are the kind of man who makes gun owners look bad, like a bunch of redneck bigots.

[SHMIV]

when the nation began is not relevant, the nation over time continued the emancipation started in 1776, to this very day. Freedom is a process, and we have continued to make more people free, and part of the voice, which is good, as opposed to trying and stifle those we don't like. They have rights, too. If you want a system which tries to muffle the vote, and stifle people, try Kandahar. The Taliban does exactly that. This is America, where we love freedom. Sorry you don't love freedom.

Serious? When the nation began is completely relevant. In fact, its relevance it why the constitution is relevant. Next you'll be talking like Hillary babbling on about living and breathing documents....

And now you compare me to the Taliban, so not only do you view me as a bed sheet wearing racist, but now I'm a terrorist, lol.

I don't know how much clearer I can state my position. I'm not trying to deny any rights. Let the welfare recipients have guns, due process, protection from search and seizure, and all the other fun stuff. But, voting is a privilege, not a right.

Lastly, our freedoms have stopped evolving. Lately, our freedoms are regressing, largely in part to irresponsible, uninformed, ill-informed, or emotional voting. Limiting the voting privileges would help to solve that problem. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not. The human factor will always hinder any solution. But, it is a good start.

[SHMIV]

Joe, shame on you for race-bating in the style of Jackson or Sharpton. Nothing I've said supports those accusations.

Shame on you for malignantly implying that I have anything against those that have selflessly fought for my freedoms.

Actually, shame on you for ALL of those baseless accusations that you have just attempted to put on my shoulders.