Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why did they do it? Why?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 8:51:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

That's not the issue. Voter disenfranchisement is illegal everywhere in the United States. However there are some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes, so upon current and historical evidence they should require greater vetting before they can make any voting changes. To your question regarding drugs; first of all the analogy is invalid because voting rights are enforced everywhere. It'd be more accurate if you asked: Would it be okay for you to station more police officers in poor communities? And the answer would be yes - which by the way is what they already do.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 8:52:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

It is along this line of reasoning that I advocate welfare not for the poor, but for everyone. It should not be discriminatory...it should simply be there to add meaning the right to life, and nothing more.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 8:53:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

Can you source something for this please? Thanks in advance.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 8:55:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:53:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

Can you source something for this please? Thanks in advance.

Source what? The ruling or the immediate responses of the Southern legistlatures?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 8:57:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:55:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:53:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

Can you source something for this please? Thanks in advance.

Source what? The ruling or the immediate responses of the Southern legistlatures?

Whatever prompted you to post this.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 8:59:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:57:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:55:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:53:36 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

Can you source something for this please? Thanks in advance.

Source what? The ruling or the immediate responses of the Southern legistlatures?

Whatever prompted you to post this.

I heard the ruling on the news.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 9:10:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Could you tell me why voter IDs, early voting/early voter registration bans, and Sunday bans have racial implications?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 9:17:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 9:10:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Could you tell me why voter IDs, early voting/early voter registration bans, and Sunday bans have racial implications?

Statistically speaking, minorities are less likely to have or afford the type of identification (i.e drivers licenses) that the laws require. Also statistically speaking, minorities are disproportionately more likely to use sunday voting after church or mail-in votes early because their work may not allow the kind of time commitment of waiting at the polls. Here's a brief snippet of those findings http://www.dailykos.com...

Let me ask you a question. Do you or don't you think that the Republican legislatures are aware of these statistics?

And so do you or don't you think that they are targeting these practices BECAUSE of those statistics?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 9:27:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 9:17:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 9:10:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Could you tell me why voter IDs, early voting/early voter registration bans, and Sunday bans have racial implications?

Statistically speaking, minorities are less likely to have or afford the type of identification (i.e drivers licenses) that the laws require. Also statistically speaking, minorities are disproportionately more likely to use sunday voting after church or mail-in votes early because their work may not allow the kind of time commitment of waiting at the polls. Here's a brief snippet of those findings http://www.dailykos.com...

I can respond at least to the ID issue, the only "restriction" I support.

The thing is, ID laws take the affordability into account. If, for some reason, a person doesn't already have an appropriate ID, they have to be given one free by the state upon request. That was the case here in Wisconsin. In essence this is because of the fact that there is the immutable universal suffrage of those over 18, so that there can't be any sort of poll tax or anything similar (ie, voter IDs that MUST be paid for).

Let me ask you a question. Do you or don't you think that the Republican legislatures are aware of these statistics?

I really couldn't say. I would probably say they are, from the efforts of their Democratic counterparts.

And so do you or don't you think that they are targeting these practices BECAUSE of those statistics?

MAYBE the early or Sunday voting restrictions, but I don't think that they are for voter IDs. I wouldn't be surprised, though. My main issue just rests with the assumption from the get-go that those who support such measures are implicitly racist.

However, regardless, I'm already opposed to any such restrictions BESIDES voter IDs anyway, on principle.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 9:33:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:52:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


It is along this line of reasoning that I advocate welfare not for the poor, but for everyone. It should not be discriminatory...it should simply be there to add meaning the right to life, and nothing more.

thats a pretty interesting idea
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 9:33:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 9:27:10 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/25/2013 9:17:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 9:10:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Could you tell me why voter IDs, early voting/early voter registration bans, and Sunday bans have racial implications?

Statistically speaking, minorities are less likely to have or afford the type of identification (i.e drivers licenses) that the laws require. Also statistically speaking, minorities are disproportionately more likely to use sunday voting after church or mail-in votes early because their work may not allow the kind of time commitment of waiting at the polls. Here's a brief snippet of those findings http://www.dailykos.com...

I can respond at least to the ID issue, the only "restriction" I support.

The thing is, ID laws take the affordability into account. If, for some reason, a person doesn't already have an appropriate ID, they have to be given one free by the state upon request. That was the case here in Wisconsin. In essence this is because of the fact that there is the immutable universal suffrage of those over 18, so that there can't be any sort of poll tax or anything similar (ie, voter IDs that MUST be paid for).

Let me ask you a question. Do you or don't you think that the Republican legislatures are aware of these statistics?

I really couldn't say. I would probably say they are, from the efforts of their Democratic counterparts.

And so do you or don't you think that they are targeting these practices BECAUSE of those statistics?

MAYBE the early or Sunday voting restrictions, but I don't think that they are for voter IDs. I wouldn't be surprised, though. My main issue just rests with the assumption from the get-go that those who support such measures are implicitly racist.

However, regardless, I'm already opposed to any such restrictions BESIDES voter IDs anyway, on principle.

That's a fair perspective, and if there was no monetary barrier like you say, then I'd have no problem with voter ID laws which allow fair access to polls for everyone adult in this country. I'm just more cynical than you with regard to the South's policies. Wisconsin republicans are not the same as Mississippi Republicans, and it remains to be seen whether or not they've expressed any such concern over the affordability of voting - and I doubt that they would since the southern states are closing down polls in minority communities and designing their voting systems such that the white polls carry fewer voters in faster times and the minority polls carry far more.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:03:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:52:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

It is along this line of reasoning that I advocate welfare not for the poor, but for everyone. It should not be discriminatory...it should simply be there to add meaning the right to life, and nothing more.

Bill Gates, welfare recipient.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:05:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:51:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

That's not the issue. Voter disenfranchisement is illegal everywhere in the United States. However there are some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes, so upon current and historical evidence they should require greater vetting before they can make any voting changes. To your question regarding drugs; first of all the analogy is invalid because voting rights are enforced everywhere. It'd be more accurate if you asked: Would it be okay for you to station more police officers in poor communities? And the answer would be yes - which by the way is what they already do.

States don't do it, the leaders of states do it. The state is not a thinking, acting thing. The people that lead it are.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:09:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 10:05:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:51:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

That's not the issue. Voter disenfranchisement is illegal everywhere in the United States. However there are some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes, so upon current and historical evidence they should require greater vetting before they can make any voting changes. To your question regarding drugs; first of all the analogy is invalid because voting rights are enforced everywhere. It'd be more accurate if you asked: Would it be okay for you to station more police officers in poor communities? And the answer would be yes - which by the way is what they already do.

States don't do it, the leaders of states do it. The state is not a thinking, acting thing. The people that lead it are.

What's your point? A legistlative body is a legistlative body - and it's well within the right and justification of the federal government to scrutinize the bills of those legislatures which are most likely to violate the intent and regulation of the 15th Amendment.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:11:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Boo fvcking hoo. They vote Democrat anyways.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:13:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 10:09:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:05:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:51:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

That's not the issue. Voter disenfranchisement is illegal everywhere in the United States. However there are some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes, so upon current and historical evidence they should require greater vetting before they can make any voting changes. To your question regarding drugs; first of all the analogy is invalid because voting rights are enforced everywhere. It'd be more accurate if you asked: Would it be okay for you to station more police officers in poor communities? And the answer would be yes - which by the way is what they already do.

States don't do it, the leaders of states do it. The state is not a thinking, acting thing. The people that lead it are.

What's your point? A legistlative body is a legistlative body - and it's well within the right and justification of the federal government to scrutinize the bills of those legislatures which are most likely to violate the intent and regulation of the 15th Amendment.

1) You stated that "some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes" and referenced that it takes more than 50 years for areas to change.

2) Within the rights =/= right to do. It is also within the rights for the federal government to scrutinize all state bills equally.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:20:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 10:13:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:09:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:05:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:51:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

That's not the issue. Voter disenfranchisement is illegal everywhere in the United States. However there are some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes, so upon current and historical evidence they should require greater vetting before they can make any voting changes. To your question regarding drugs; first of all the analogy is invalid because voting rights are enforced everywhere. It'd be more accurate if you asked: Would it be okay for you to station more police officers in poor communities? And the answer would be yes - which by the way is what they already do.

States don't do it, the leaders of states do it. The state is not a thinking, acting thing. The people that lead it are.

What's your point? A legistlative body is a legistlative body - and it's well within the right and justification of the federal government to scrutinize the bills of those legislatures which are most likely to violate the intent and regulation of the 15th Amendment.

1) You stated that "some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes" and referenced that it takes more than 50 years for areas to change.

The legislature is a reflection of the public sentiment. They aren't some minority that happened to sneak their way into state government.

2) Within the rights =/= right to do. It is also within the rights for the federal government to scrutinize all state bills equally.

lol this is like that time you voted on my debate that "not logically possible =/= logically impossible"....which made me very annoyed. What you MEAN is that "power to do =/= right to do", THAT'S what you mean. The inequality you stated above, as well as the one from your vote are syntactical permutations with equivalent logical meanings. There IS no difference and your inequality is false.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:22:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South

What racist voter suppression laws are you referring to? Voter ID laws? Voter ID laws, even if they do create a marginal deterrent effect such that they may keep a few minority voters from going to the polls, they are nothing like the kind of voter suppression that took place in the Jim Crow south. To redress the egregious character of political disenfranchisement under Jim Crow was the purpose of the section of the voting rights act which was struck down today. Because that degree of discrimination no longer takes place, it makes no sense to continue to impose a legislative regimen designed to remedy it as the disease has been brought under control. (Hint: The response (of some civil rights attorneys) of outrage that "if these laws aren't maintained, we can expect to repeat history" is rampantly absurd.)

, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South??

Surprise!

Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm.

It's not about culture, it's about keeping black men and women out of the polls -which no longer takes place as it did under Jim Crow.

If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South.

No, it won't.

And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

Not so.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:32:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 10:20:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:13:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:09:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:05:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:51:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

That's not the issue. Voter disenfranchisement is illegal everywhere in the United States. However there are some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes, so upon current and historical evidence they should require greater vetting before they can make any voting changes. To your question regarding drugs; first of all the analogy is invalid because voting rights are enforced everywhere. It'd be more accurate if you asked: Would it be okay for you to station more police officers in poor communities? And the answer would be yes - which by the way is what they already do.

States don't do it, the leaders of states do it. The state is not a thinking, acting thing. The people that lead it are.

What's your point? A legistlative body is a legistlative body - and it's well within the right and justification of the federal government to scrutinize the bills of those legislatures which are most likely to violate the intent and regulation of the 15th Amendment.

1) You stated that "some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes" and referenced that it takes more than 50 years for areas to change.

The legislature is a reflection of the public sentiment. They aren't some minority that happened to sneak their way into state government.

Are you sure? You really believe that any government in the US is an honest reflection of its public sentiment? I suppose that is why congress is so loved by the people.


2) Within the rights =/= right to do. It is also within the rights for the federal government to scrutinize all state bills equally.

lol this is like that time you voted on my debate that "not logically possible =/= logically impossible"....which made me very annoyed. What you MEAN is that "power to do =/= right to do", THAT'S what you mean. The inequality you stated above, as well as the one from your vote are syntactical permutations with equivalent logical meanings. There IS no difference and your inequality is false.

uh, no. Both on your old debate and what I just said. Just because something is within your rights to do, does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Clear example. I have the right to keep living and I have the right to stop living, does that mean that both are the right thing to do? I guess so.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 10:41:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 10:32:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:20:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:13:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:09:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:05:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:51:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

That's not the issue. Voter disenfranchisement is illegal everywhere in the United States. However there are some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes, so upon current and historical evidence they should require greater vetting before they can make any voting changes. To your question regarding drugs; first of all the analogy is invalid because voting rights are enforced everywhere. It'd be more accurate if you asked: Would it be okay for you to station more police officers in poor communities? And the answer would be yes - which by the way is what they already do.

States don't do it, the leaders of states do it. The state is not a thinking, acting thing. The people that lead it are.

What's your point? A legistlative body is a legistlative body - and it's well within the right and justification of the federal government to scrutinize the bills of those legislatures which are most likely to violate the intent and regulation of the 15th Amendment.

1) You stated that "some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes" and referenced that it takes more than 50 years for areas to change.

The legislature is a reflection of the public sentiment. They aren't some minority that happened to sneak their way into state government.

Are you sure? You really believe that any government in the US is an honest reflection of its public sentiment? I suppose that is why congress is so loved by the people.

Congress is the ungodly cohabitation of disparate regional cultures and ideologies. A state legislature is far more monolithic --> your comparison is inaccurate.


2) Within the rights =/= right to do. It is also within the rights for the federal government to scrutinize all state bills equally.

lol this is like that time you voted on my debate that "not logically possible =/= logically impossible"....which made me very annoyed. What you MEAN is that "power to do =/= right to do", THAT'S what you mean. The inequality you stated above, as well as the one from your vote are syntactical permutations with equivalent logical meanings. There IS no difference and your inequality is false.

uh, no. Both on your old debate and what I just said. Just because something is within your rights to do, does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Clear example. I have the right to keep living and I have the right to stop living, does that mean that both are the right thing to do? I guess so.

right you are. I thought you meant that having the right to do something is not the same as something being within your rights. But you've clarified, and you're right. But just for the sake of closure, I'd like for you to justify that not "logically possible =/= logically impossible" idea of yours which I'm convinced is very very faulty.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 11:16:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 10:41:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:32:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:20:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:13:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:09:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 10:05:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:51:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

That's not the issue. Voter disenfranchisement is illegal everywhere in the United States. However there are some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes, so upon current and historical evidence they should require greater vetting before they can make any voting changes. To your question regarding drugs; first of all the analogy is invalid because voting rights are enforced everywhere. It'd be more accurate if you asked: Would it be okay for you to station more police officers in poor communities? And the answer would be yes - which by the way is what they already do.

States don't do it, the leaders of states do it. The state is not a thinking, acting thing. The people that lead it are.

What's your point? A legistlative body is a legistlative body - and it's well within the right and justification of the federal government to scrutinize the bills of those legislatures which are most likely to violate the intent and regulation of the 15th Amendment.

1) You stated that "some states that we KNOW have an unabated tendency to restrict minority votes" and referenced that it takes more than 50 years for areas to change.

The legislature is a reflection of the public sentiment. They aren't some minority that happened to sneak their way into state government.

Are you sure? You really believe that any government in the US is an honest reflection of its public sentiment? I suppose that is why congress is so loved by the people.

Congress is the ungodly cohabitation of disparate regional cultures and ideologies. A state legislature is far more monolithic --> your comparison is inaccurate.


2) Within the rights =/= right to do. It is also within the rights for the federal government to scrutinize all state bills equally.

lol this is like that time you voted on my debate that "not logically possible =/= logically impossible"....which made me very annoyed. What you MEAN is that "power to do =/= right to do", THAT'S what you mean. The inequality you stated above, as well as the one from your vote are syntactical permutations with equivalent logical meanings. There IS no difference and your inequality is false.

uh, no. Both on your old debate and what I just said. Just because something is within your rights to do, does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Clear example. I have the right to keep living and I have the right to stop living, does that mean that both are the right thing to do? I guess so.

right you are. I thought you meant that having the right to do something is not the same as something being within your rights. But you've clarified, and you're right. But just for the sake of closure, I'd like for you to justify that not "logically possible =/= logically impossible" idea of yours which I'm convinced is very very faulty.

This will be the last time.

First off, lets point out that I did not awards points based off that. I said in my RFD that Con missed some opportunities, such as that. I awarded the points based on your admittance that God cannot be affirmed nor refuted as a failure to meet your BOP to show that God is logically impossible.

You are assuming that there are only two options, logically possible or logically impossible (and if it is not one, then it is the other). However, this is a false dichotomy, as there is simply illogical. Things can be illogical, without being logically impossible. This can simply be the unknown.

There is a difference in saying that we don't know logically how something is happening, and logically, that thing should not be happening. Of course, talking about that debate, we can also say that just because something is outside of the rules of logic =/= that it is logically impossible (if it is outside the realm of logic, it isn't logically anything).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:27:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 10:03:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:52:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:41:30 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
How is it that after the swath of racist voter suppression laws overtly hoisted upon the 2012 election process in the South, SCOTUS, in all its infinite wisdom, finds it no longer appropriate for the DOJ to specifically monitor the South?? Yes, we are a more accepting and tolerant country than we were 50 years ago, but it takes more than half a century for an entire region to reform its cultural paradigm. If Congress doesn't re-institute the specific provisions of section 4, this ruling will effectively disenfranchise thousands of poor minority voters in the South. And the sheer fact that the southern state legislatures TODAY used this ruling as the go-ahead for ID laws, bans on sunday voting and early voting, which they could otherwise produce without heavy judicial scrutiny, suggests that there are racial or rather, racist intentions behind them.

If something is bad (like, say, voter suppression, which is arguable), shouldn't it be enforced everywhere? Would it be okay to only enforce drug laws in poor communities (they are, after all, more likely to abuse drugs)? Or care about employment discrimination in only companies larger than 1,000 employees?

It is along this line of reasoning that I advocate welfare not for the poor, but for everyone. It should not be discriminatory...it should simply be there to add meaning the right to life, and nothing more.

Bill Gates, welfare recipient.

Does Bill Gates have the right to life?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:28:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 9:33:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:52:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


It is along this line of reasoning that I advocate welfare not for the poor, but for everyone. It should not be discriminatory...it should simply be there to add meaning the right to life, and nothing more.

thats a pretty interesting idea

Thanks. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:46:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:28:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 9:33:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:52:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


It is along this line of reasoning that I advocate welfare not for the poor, but for everyone. It should not be discriminatory...it should simply be there to add meaning the right to life, and nothing more.

thats a pretty interesting idea

Thanks. =)

When you say "welfare", though, what do you mean?

I've long thought that it would be nice if there were, rather than foodstamps, a "food repository" that anyone could go do...not the greatest food, perhaps, but adequate for needs. Few would volunteer to eat bread and rice and nothing else or whatever, but anyone on even temporarily hard times would jump at the ability to prevent a looming catastrophe from becoming worse.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:51:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:46:32 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:28:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 9:33:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:52:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


It is along this line of reasoning that I advocate welfare not for the poor, but for everyone. It should not be discriminatory...it should simply be there to add meaning the right to life, and nothing more.

thats a pretty interesting idea

Thanks. =)

When you say "welfare", though, what do you mean?

I've long thought that it would be nice if there were, rather than foodstamps, a "food repository" that anyone could go do...not the greatest food, perhaps, but adequate for needs. Few would volunteer to eat bread and rice and nothing else or whatever, but anyone on even temporarily hard times would jump at the ability to prevent a looming catastrophe from becoming worse.

I've thought about something similar. I've thought about it enough to put this food repository in a central kitchen surrounded by living accommodations that have rooms with no furniture whatsoever, connected to a public area with nothing in it except empty space and a camera. Anyone could go there. Maybe deposit a dollar for a government blanket. Keep the public toilets clean. You want more, go work for a living.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:55:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:51:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:46:32 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:28:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 9:33:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:52:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


It is along this line of reasoning that I advocate welfare not for the poor, but for everyone. It should not be discriminatory...it should simply be there to add meaning the right to life, and nothing more.

thats a pretty interesting idea

Thanks. =)

When you say "welfare", though, what do you mean?

I've long thought that it would be nice if there were, rather than foodstamps, a "food repository" that anyone could go do...not the greatest food, perhaps, but adequate for needs. Few would volunteer to eat bread and rice and nothing else or whatever, but anyone on even temporarily hard times would jump at the ability to prevent a looming catastrophe from becoming worse.

I've thought about something similar. I've thought about it enough to put this food repository in a central kitchen surrounded by living accommodations that have rooms with no furniture whatsoever, connected to a public area with nothing in it except empty space and a camera. Anyone could go there. Maybe deposit a dollar for a government blanket. Keep the public toilets clean. You want more, go work for a living.

Oh, I forgot, the entrance/exit is a gigantic security apparatus. You change into nothing but some drab pajama looking outfit before you enter, maybe another $1 deposit for that too. You cannot bring in anything else, except your blanket. No kids, no families. You want that, go work for a living.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 1:56:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:51:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:46:32 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:28:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 9:33:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:52:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


It is along this line of reasoning that I advocate welfare not for the poor, but for everyone. It should not be discriminatory...it should simply be there to add meaning the right to life, and nothing more.

thats a pretty interesting idea

Thanks. =)

When you say "welfare", though, what do you mean?

I've long thought that it would be nice if there were, rather than foodstamps, a "food repository" that anyone could go do...not the greatest food, perhaps, but adequate for needs. Few would volunteer to eat bread and rice and nothing else or whatever, but anyone on even temporarily hard times would jump at the ability to prevent a looming catastrophe from becoming worse.

I've thought about something similar. I've thought about it enough to put this food repository in a central kitchen surrounded by living accommodations that have rooms with no furniture whatsoever, connected to a public area with nothing in it except empty space and a camera. Anyone could go there. Maybe deposit a dollar for a government blanket. Keep the public toilets clean. You want more, go work for a living.

I always envisioned it as a tower, but perhaps that's just because I wanted to call it a "Babel Tower". Bottom floor grocery, other floors housing. Possibly with lower floors being free and free-of-frills, higher floors having some of those frills, but having to be paid for.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 2:07:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 1:56:27 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:51:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:46:32 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 1:28:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/25/2013 9:33:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 8:52:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:


It is along this line of reasoning that I advocate welfare not for the poor, but for everyone. It should not be discriminatory...it should simply be there to add meaning the right to life, and nothing more.

thats a pretty interesting idea

Thanks. =)

When you say "welfare", though, what do you mean?

I've long thought that it would be nice if there were, rather than foodstamps, a "food repository" that anyone could go do...not the greatest food, perhaps, but adequate for needs. Few would volunteer to eat bread and rice and nothing else or whatever, but anyone on even temporarily hard times would jump at the ability to prevent a looming catastrophe from becoming worse.

I've thought about something similar. I've thought about it enough to put this food repository in a central kitchen surrounded by living accommodations that have rooms with no furniture whatsoever, connected to a public area with nothing in it except empty space and a camera. Anyone could go there. Maybe deposit a dollar for a government blanket. Keep the public toilets clean. You want more, go work for a living.

I always envisioned it as a tower, but perhaps that's just because I wanted to call it a "Babel Tower". Bottom floor grocery, other floors housing. Possibly with lower floors being free and free-of-frills, higher floors having some of those frills, but having to be paid for.

Na, no payment, it's welfare after all. No grocery store either, that would require payment. The idea would be to make it as "no frills" as possible to motivate people to go out and make better of themselves, all the while being assured that there is some bare minimum that will keep them alive and not hungry.

The main problem I come up with is medical...that could become ungodly expensive.

What you describe is actually quite prevalent in east Asia. Almost every city, town, and rural village has skyscrapers built by LG/Samsung/Hyundai/etc that have grocery stores on the bottom, and with better accommodations with nice views on top.

The main problem is that you can see what happens when they start to get old...skyscrapers are harder to maintain than a single-story building.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?