I'd rather live in France than in the US for a myriad of reasons that range from better food, less sectarian religions (for the most part), better literature (your novels eat dick*), lesser travel times between big cities, the general distances that you need to travel inside a city are shorter, it's easier to make pick a healthier lifestyle (in the US sugar gets sold on everything), a bigger interest in outside cultures (media still mostly focus on national topics) and sexier people.
With that said, you can get a pretty decent lifestyle in the US with enough money and education, the availability of culture and products truly is outstanding. Climate is occasionally decent depending on where you live and it's also easier to get a job in the US as far as I know.
*- A couple of your outlier authors are ok.
Originally posted by Bentley
I'd rather live in France than in the US for a myriad of reasons that range from better food, less sectarian religions (for the most part), better literature (your novels eat dick*), lesser travel times between big cities, the general distances that you need to travel inside a city are shorter, it's easier to make pick a healthier lifestyle (in the US sugar gets sold on everything), a bigger interest in outside cultures (media still mostly focus on national topics) and sexier people.With that said, you can get a pretty decent lifestyle in the US with enough money and education, the availability of culture and products truly is outstanding. Climate is occasionally decent depending on where you live and it's also easier to get a job in the US as far as I know.
*- A couple of your outlier authors are ok.
Wonderful, someone who is honest enough and intelligent enough to outline the pros and cons and take a position that just so happens to be "not America."
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I love when people keep deflecting from focus of discussion by trying to attack someone personally on sh!t they have no clue of.You see a post where double d baselessly asserts I'm lying and dodges my points via ad hominem, and your response is to encourage him.
While you may be more knowledgeable about foreign affairs than I am, your post here is something I'd expect from a grade schooler.
If you're done perpetuating this deflectionary tangent, maybe you can actually say something relevant to the op?
Sure, voting is not a right in America as minors cannot vote. Your repeated attempts to shower compliments on Canada should be based in a little bit of logic, right?
Why is this so hard? Of course voting is not a right. Any imbecile can walk into a go no booth and punch a hole for a candidate. But ask youreselves, how many of them are intelligent enough to even properly understand their candidates policies?
Most of what The average person knows about their candidates, are what they see on tv.
Voting is a privilege reserved only for those who knows what their doing. No more, no less.
Originally posted by SquallX
Why is this so hard? Of course voting is not a right. Any imbecile can walk into a go no booth and punch a hole for a candidate. But ask youreselves, how many of them are intelligent enough to even properly understand their candidates policies?Most of what The average person knows about their candidates, are what they see on tv.
Voting is a privilege reserved only for those who knows what their doing. No more, no less.
No, voting is indeed a Right.
Amendment XV (15) of the United States Constitution
Ratified 1870
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Originally posted by Robtard
No, voting is indeed a Right.Amendment XV (15) of the United States Constitution
Ratified 1870
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Learn to better understand what you read.
Yes, voting is a right. But to actually go out and vote, is a privilege.
Once more read what I wrote. Most Americans, for that matter, the average person that vote have no idea on their candidates policies, but what they watches on the news.
Thomas Sowell, a highly educated Economist said it best. He would rather have a small percentage of people voting, that knows the policies of their candidates, then to have a majority of people voting that knows nothing. And they vote base on mearly party lines.
Originally posted by cdtm
Voting is a right.The article's reason for pointing that out, is not so apparent. Is someone being denied the right to vote based on skin color, or any other of the mentioned criteria?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Sure, voting is not a right in America as minors cannot vote.
If politicians are allowed to choose who can or can't vote, then the power is no longer with the people.
You may take issue with Canada's policy on free speech( i do too), but as the people are the ones in power there, if they don't like it, they can always elect representatives to get rid of said policy.
In Canada, voting is a right, in America, its now a privilege.
Why is this so hard? Of course voting is not a right. Any imbecile can walk into a go no booth and punch a hole for a candidate. But ask youreselves, how many of them are intelligent enough to even properly understand their candidates policies?
If you give politicians the power to choose who they deem worthy of a vote, eventually, they'll decide that those who don't vote for them aren't worthy of a vote.
Elected officials don't simply represent those who fit your qualifications as worthy of a vote, they represent everyone. Hence, everyone should have equal access to representation. If the populace isn't knowledgable enough, then its up to the politicans to communicate with them or enact policy that educates the populace. Keeping a populace ignorant enough so you can justify curtailing which parts of the population receive representation is the practice of dictators, not those who claim to be part of a representative democracy,
Not that this policy is discriminating based on knowledge. Voter restrictions, making voter id's difficult for certain groups to receive, forcing people to pay for the right to vote, and removing voting places so that voting is harder in certain areas has nothing to do with knowledge.
It's politicians trying to curtail the turnout from specific demographics likely to vote against them.
Here, for those too lazy to actually read the article in question:
In voter ID cases all over the country, courts are considering the proper level of "scrutiny" to apply to "burdens" on the right to cast a ballot. In 2008, the Supreme Court approved an Indiana voter ID law, even conceding that it had a partisan basis, because it was not "excessively burdensome" to most voters.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Here, for those too lazy to actually read the article in question:-> partisan basis
->not excessively burdensome to most, not all voters.
Yeah, but without a license, you can't drive either. If you don't have access to public/alternative transportation, you can't vote.
Taking the definition of "right" to the extreme, in the sense nothing should abridge it at all, one can argue the government is obligated to bus everyone in who can't afford a car.
Originally posted by cdtm
Yeah, but without a license, you can't drive either. If you don't have access to public/alternative transportation, you can't vote.
That people might not be able to vote due to public transportation isn't something worth defending.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
driving is not a right. Driving is a money earned privilege.That people might not be able to vote due to public transportation isn't something worth defending.
Why isn't it worth defending? After all, a "right" is simply another way of saying the government has an obligation. In this case, voting for all. Should someone have that right denied if they can't afford a car? What about the homeless? Don't they have a right to vote?
Why is an id that anyone can obtain (Even undocumented immigrants can get one) considered denying a right to vote, yet doing nothing for people who can't even get to the polls is?
Where do we draw the line on responsibility towards this right?
Originally posted by cdtm
Why isn't it worth defending? After all, a "right" is simply another way of saying the government has an obligation. In this case, voting for all. Should someone have that right denied if they can't afford a car? What about the homeless? Don't they have a right to vote?Why is an id that anyone can obtain (Even undocumented immigrants can get one) considered denying a right to vote, yet doing nothing for people who can't even get to the polls is?
Where do we draw the line on responsibility towards this right?
The idea of making sure every citizen is equally able to vote and has an equal say in our republic and making sure every one is able to get to the polls aren't mutually exclusive concepts.
And untill there's widespread proof of voter fraud, there's no justification for having tens of thousands of voters disinfranchised per state.
If you want to enforce voter ID's, then the goverment forcing citizens to pull up with voer ID's has an obligation to make sure they're easily accessible for everyone. Currently that isn't the case.
And the courts have admitted the issue here isn't voter fraud, the motivation here is to suppress the vote of demographics that might vote against you.