Text 4999, 110 rader
Skriven 2007-08-25 19:43:00 av TIM RICHARDSON
     Kommentar till en text av DAN CEPPA
Ärende: More neo-con tactics
============================
On 08-22-07, DAN CEPPA said to TIM RICHARDSON:


>> That's the fun part of time travel, John.  You don't ask for
>> it, or you don't ask for it correctly, you don't get to take
>> it with you.  You really need to have watched more Twilight Zones.


TR> Most of what you've said here seems to have come from you having
TR> watched too `many' Twilight Zones.


DC>My illustration is quite apt.  The very fact that John has seen
DC>fit to make allowances that reflect changes in the his basic
DC>premise that the original Constitution was perfect says it all.


DC>> In any event, the 2 items you did allow for came into being because
DC>> of liberal activism.  Are you a closet liberal?


JM>> You will have to prove your premise.


DC> I already did, John.


TR> You've proved nothing. All you've done is ignore the fact that there
TR> is a voting block in this country that votes in almost every election
TR> who are not even supposed to `be' voting; illegal aliens.


DC>That has nothing to do with my analogy.   As it stands, illegal
DC>aliens, in fact even legal aliens, do not have voting rights.


And yet.....they vote!


TR> It got so bad that even some DMV's were automatically registering
TR> people to vote, who applied and recieved drivers licenses, and made no
TR> effort whatever to determine that individuals citizenship, or legal
TR> right to be in America in the first place.


DC>Yep, him.  Now, where have I ever stated that alliens both legal
DC>and illegal have full rights as citizens?


You're trying to sidestep the fact that they *do* vote.....and John was
right:


far too many people vote.


>You didn't
> make an exception for landownship.  Nor did you make an
> allowance for woman's suffrage until I called you on it.


TR> Your strawman aside.......


DC>The strawman is all yours.


Not at all. Its was, and remains, `yours'.


DC>You are the one trying to equate
DC>what I wrote with voting rights for illegal aliens.


Untrue. John said `rightly' that far too many people vote.


*You* are the one who started tossing in landownership, woman's sufferage,
etc etc.



DC>The example I gave for womman's sufferage is an actual right in this day
DC>and age that doesn't exist if the laws on voting are rolled
DC>back to the time of the Constitution's inception.


Nobody advocated `rolling back' to those times. John was only saying that the
original meaning of the Constitution should be adhered to. He said nothing
about owning land or woman sufferage.


> As it stands, you are in record in here as stating that "too
> many people vote".  As such, it's quite easy to come to the
> conclusion as to how you will restrict those voters that you
> don't like.


TR> He's right. Far too many people vote in this country.


DC>With an average 60% turnout rate?  Your real problem is that
DC>too many non-Republicans have the franchise.


"Franchise"? What "franchise"?

---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)