Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

political debate

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by ChaShu
    Should you be (or have had for a prolonged period) paying taxes to have the right to vote?
    No. I'm not sure how things look where you live, but here not everyone can expect to get a job, even if they do have a nice education, so it would not be very fair, would it?

    Comment


    • #32
      Unfair and unkind

      Originally posted by ChaShu
      Actually, another question. Should you be (or have had for a prolonged period) paying taxes to have the right to vote? The premise here is, as you are a partner in contributing to government, you have a greater right to vote.
      In the olden days only people who owned land and other real estate were allowed to vote. But that was in the bad old days when "Bosses" ruled the world and your life as you knew it. After hard long struggles from trade unions and the like we all have a fairly good life, at least here in Europe. The fact that you finished some sort of education destines your station in life, I think this is fair. If we should abide the rule as stated in the above quote I think it is the start of a descent into those olden days which were only good if you were a "Boss". Since I'm not, and the majority of people as well, I don't think this is a good idea. Anyone can hit a bump in life and be unemployed for some time. If you lose your job and you would also lose your right to vote, then surely we are reverting to those olden days. The society we live in is not all about work and usefulness. I mean mothers at home take care of the children and the household so they will also be exempt of the elections? I think that half of the population (women) will also rise against this unfair statement.
      Let's forget what you said and say no more about these very conservative viewpoints.
      Last edited by Fonsz; 9th April 2005, 04:21 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Berlin Wall

        Originally posted by Kaoru
        The what? Any links to see more about that? I never knew about that until just now. Is is a re-enactement group?

        Kaoru
        Here's a link that explains the problems the US is having at their Southern Border. And with these minute men.
        http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...westopillegals
        Last edited by Fonsz; 9th April 2005, 07:51 PM. Reason: Forgot link

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Fonsz
          Let's forget what you said and say no more about these very conservative viewpoints.
          Actually, my questions stemmed from two studies that came out of Canada regarding voting:
          1. Lower the voting age to 16 and allow non-citizens the right to vote.
          2. Raise the voting age to 25, limited to male landowners, who can vote once in their area of residence and once in their area of business.
          Also, I don't believe in censoring viewpoints as that is the essence of a free and open debate, whatever the leaning, left or right. I hope you can understand my m otivation for asking the question. Truce?

          Comment


          • #35
            Truce and peace.

            Originally posted by ChaShu
            Actually, my questions stemmed from two studies that came out of Canada regarding voting:
            1. Lower the voting age to 16 and allow non-citizens the right to vote.
            2. Raise the voting age to 25, limited to male landowners, who can vote once in their area of residence and once in their area of business.
            Also, I don't believe in censoring viewpoints as that is the essence of a free and open debate, whatever the leaning, left or right. I hope you can understand my m otivation for asking the question. Truce?
            Of course there is a truce, since everything here is to be taken at face value or for the lack of a face at what it says. I experienced it as a return to the dark ages.
            I don't know what came out of the studies mentioned above but I would support the first one. When you vote you choose what kind of society you're going to live in. And 16 year olds and non-citizens also suffer or benefit from the outcome of an election.
            Having said that if I was filthy rich or plain rich I think I would opt for the second one. Because I suppose the moment you get rich you like to stay that way.
            On the other hand if had money to burn I would have build a magnificent Dojo like the Butokuden in Kyoto with overnight accomodations and everyone here would be cordialy invited to come over for practice and cultural exchange. Since I don't have any money to burn it will be wishful thinking.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Fonsz
              On the other hand if had money to burn I would have build a magnificent Dojo like the Butokuden in Kyoto with overnight accomodations and everyone here would be cordialy invited to come over for practice and cultural exchange. Since I don't have any money to burn it will be wishful thinking.
              Actually the first thing I would do if I were to win the lottery, that and buy myself some XRBSO bogu. Maybe take some time off and go to Japan to train for a few years and probably buy a place in Barcelona or along the coast near Benidorm. Don't know if there's kendo there though...

              Comment


              • #37
                21st Century is the Century of China..

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ISSAC RU
                  21st Century is the Century of China..
                  And it was before the 21st, No?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I can't imagin anyone would let a 16 year old vote. They don't even know what life is yet. Parents aren't supposed to argue with their child about what they're making that child do. Children don't have a say. 16 years olds are still children so why should they have a say when the government tells them what they should do? I know 18 years-olds don't know what life is either, but considering the government can send them to battle at anytime 18 years olds and up need a say. And in the case of letting non-citizens vote, why? What is the point of being a citizen. What does it mean to be a citizen. Why should we let someone in another country decide who will be our senator, president, etc... And I mean would you let just any non-citizen vote even illegal aliens? Would you have to have some kind of residence in that country or could a non-citizen do an absenty ballot? I think voting is fine the way it is in the US at least; 18 and up US citizen. Thats a pretty big spectrum and probably even if we let 16 year olds vote they still wouldn't. 18-25 has the smallest turn out. If one doesn't vote one is happy with the way things are.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Akai Bushi
                      I can't imagin anyone would let a 16 year old vote. They don't even know what life is yet. Parents aren't supposed to argue with their child about what they're making that child do. Children don't have a say. 16 years olds are still children so why should they have a say when the government tells them what they should do? I know 18 years-olds don't know what life is either, but considering the government can send them to battle at anytime 18 years olds and up need a say. And in the case of letting non-citizens vote, why? What is the point of being a citizen. What does it mean to be a citizen. Why should we let someone in another country decide who will be our senator, president, etc... And I mean would you let just any non-citizen vote even illegal aliens? Would you have to have some kind of residence in that country or could a non-citizen do an absenty ballot? I think voting is fine the way it is in the US at least; 18 and up US citizen. Thats a pretty big spectrum and probably even if we let 16 year olds vote they still wouldn't. 18-25 has the smallest turn out. If one doesn't vote one is happy with the way things are.
                      I agree, little kids shouldn't be allowed to vote. But to tell you the truth, if you let anyone vote, 4 year olds or what ever, the majority of them wont vote. My age group doesn't vote much either. WHen I turned 18 I started voting, me and about 2% of the rest of us. Little kids what no idea... but they wont vote trust me.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I have 2 issues with letting 16 year olds vote:
                        1. If a 16 year old is given the right to vote, then they should also be given certain responsibilities, such as standing trial as adults, the POSSIBILITY of military service, jury duty, all things that 18 year olds are already responsible for.
                        2. This places a great burden of responsibility on teachers to maintain objectivity within the classroom, where I believe 16 year olds can be very suceptible to political indoctrination.
                        As to rights and responsibilities, if we can consider an 18 year old of the age where they are already "adult" enought to carry arms in warfare and stand trial as adults, why are they not of the age to be considered responsible enough to consume alcohol? We in North America have set this age limit on alcohol which promts irresponisble drinking habits in those considered "underage" because their regulation is outside the law. Discuss?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I definilty agree on the contradictions within age limits we have set on us. I cant talk for the US as my knowledge of your laws is limited. But in Britain at 16, you can get married, smoke, have sex, and drive legally, where as you have to wait til your 18 to drink alchohol (just as bad as smoking in my opinion), vote and watch 18 rated films.

                          This all seems a little mixed up to me, especially when you consider that getting married is a much bigger decsision than going out for a drink, yet our laws imply that you have enough responsibility at 16 to get married but not enough to drink responsibly.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            to continue on the drinking matter:
                            in the US, you can drive when you're 16, and drink when you're 21 right?

                            so youve been driving a few years, and then you start drinking.

                            where I live, you can drink at 16, and drive a car at 18. so by the time we get to drive, we already know how to drink responsibly. we know our own limits.

                            catch my drift?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              That is one thing I have a problem with in the United States. I think 16 is too young to start driving. A car is a weapon. Would you give an irresponsible child a firearm. If I was making the law.(Probably thank god I'm not, some of you are saying.) I would make it ok to consume beer and wine at 16, under adult supervison. At eighteen one can drive, buy beer and wine. At 20 one can buy and consume hard stuff.

                              Any thoughts are welcome.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                ok i just got out of the hospital. Im sorry i havent interjected at all. i will sit down and read all this stuff later on. it does look pretty nice and like a good debate with what ive read .

                                anyway ill be back on later after i get my antibiotics(im having to take IV antibiotics)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X