The Goat Pen

AA, if you could get citizenship in Scotland, wouldn't you think of moving there someday?

If I could?

Trhni si.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I have seen conservatives suggest the 14th amendment goes too far and takes too much power from the states; that the clause granting citizenship through birth needs to be eliminated. I have seen conservatives argue that the 16th Amendment should be eliminated and that the 17th amendment should be axed to return control of the Senate to (currently-Republican dominated) state legislatures. Angry over their lack of popularity I have seen conservatives on this board argue that the 19th (women's suffrage), 23rd (poll taxes), and 26th (18 as voting age) also be eliminated.

Damn straight the 19th and 26th amendments should be repealed. They should both be repealed immediately. But they should be repealed for entirely different reasons (although I doubt sincerely that you would think that.)

Here is why the 19th Amendment should be repealed.

[youtube]HmDg9t5M5dI[/youtube]

This is a classic case of the ultimate difference between men and women and why we are not equal. Women have many society advantages that men will not have and..... well... that is just the way it is Strangelove, there is not a damn thing you or I can do about that (not that we would want to change that.) Chivalry means women and children first, you and I have to die. By the same token, men also have their advantages, primarily men's ability to allow cause-and-effect impact his decision making outside the scope of his emotions. Women (by and large) do NOT understand the concept of cause-and-effect. They vent. They rant. And (as a gender) they make rash political decisions based solely on their emotions. Ann Coulter described this in her argument about government spending the moment women got the vote, and she's right. Look it up, I did after this youtube. The moment women got the vote, spending (at the state level in those states) went through the roof. Women didn't give a DAMN where the money was going to come from to make them "whole" so long as they got it. This is emotion based thinking and under no circumstances do we want this kind of thinking in the voting booth.

The 26th Amendment being repealed, well that is just common sense. I think even you would be my ally on this one.

With Obamacare, you are not even an adult anymore until you are 26. You can stay on your parents health insurance until age 26. What in the blue fuck is that? THAT is called society realizing that we expect so much less of 18, 19, and even 23 year olds than we did just 20 years ago. We still regard them as children. No I don't want them voting, not on your life. This world is very different, much more complicated, much more converluted, and at age 19, I don't want that person with so much less wisdom to have the power to cancel out my vote. Raise the voting age (to at least 21, maybe even 25.)

aTm wrote:Trhni si.

Focail leat.

AlabamAlum wrote:

aTm wrote:Trhni si.

Focail leat.

Tá tú araon dÚsachtach

"Chivalry means women and children first, you and I have to die"

I wish. Not necessarily Doc, but definitely you...

Hedge would push your wife & kid overboard to survive. Hes mustard.

If I was drowning, I'd make sure I pulled IB down with me. That goes for anyone related to him, including grandchildren (preferably while he watched helplessly)....

Puter, on the 17th amendment

I guess it depends who you think Senators should answer to: their political bosses in the statehouse or the citizens themselves?

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Puter, on the 17th amendment

I think you meant IB. Puter is normal.

Define normal

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Puter, on the 17th amendment

I guess it depends who you think Senators should answer to: their political bosses in the statehouse or the citizens themselves?

Well citizens indirectly vote for senators as they vote for those that choose them.

I'm not well read enough on how it worked and what major reason was for changing it. Could state leg just put someone new in anytime they wanted? That would seem to be a bit chaotic. Some kind of term would seem to make sense.

I guess the real question is would it make a difference in how govt operated? If no real difference, no point in it. Would it just transfer the corruption and bribes to a different level of govt?

What were the arguments for the 17th at the time?

Senate terms were the same in the 19th century as today.

Arguments for the Amendment were that state legislatures were hopelessly corrupt at the time and politicians could simply bribe a few key people and buy themselves a Senate seat. Also, if a state legislature could not agree on who to send, the Senate seat would simply sit vacant until they could reach a compromise.

After doing a little research the first attempts to implement popular election trace back all the way to the Andrew Jackson era. So it wasn't a new or "Progressive" idea. It was already talked about only about a generation after the Founders. A decent number of states already had legislation that forced the legislature to abide by the choice of the people in a primary election; the 17th just made things uniform across all states.

Repealing it would definitely give more power to state governments, but I think at the expense of the People rather than the Federal govt. JMO. I don't doubt that taking the decision out of the hands of state legislatures drastically reduced their power. Senators used to owe their political careers to powerful state figures. Today they only need popular support.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Senate terms were the same in the 19th century as today.

Arguments for the Amendment were that state legislatures were hopelessly corrupt at the time and politicians could simply bribe a few key people and buy themselves a Senate seat. Also, if a state legislature could not agree on who to send, the Senate seat would simply sit vacant until they could reach a compromise.

After doing a little research the first attempts to implement popular election trace back all the way to the Andrew Jackson era. So it wasn't a new or "Progressive" idea. It was already talked about only about a generation after the Founders. A decent number of states already had legislation that forced the legislature to abide by the choice of the people in a primary election; the 17th just made things uniform across all states.

Repealing it would definitely give more power to state governments, but I think at the expense of the People rather than the Federal govt. JMO. I don't doubt that taking the decision out of the hands of state legislatures drastically reduced their power. Senators used to owe their political careers to powerful state figures. Today they only need popular support.

Cool. It seems to simply shift the bribery from the legislature to campaign donations.

Not sure it would really make that much difference either way. Although maybe today the outright bribery, kickbacks, and pork might draw more media attention. Maybe....probably not as people can't be bother cause Real housewives of jackassville is on somewhere.

At some point we have to rely on peoples integrity and honor and the system seems setup to always be pulling them in the other direction with what it takes to get elected and then what it takes to stay elected.

hedge wrote:"Chivalry means women and children first, you and I have to die"

I wish. Not necessarily Doc, but definitely you...

Chivalry is just scraping the surface. It is much more than that.

Anyone here care to know why there was an anti-suffrage movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Anyone here know why there were so many women who felt this way (even though it was against their own personal interests?) I'll give you all a hint, the women who were anti-suffrage were thinking bigger picture.

no idea

please elaborate

no one paragraph posts either, I want in-depth analysis with annotations & case studies... the whole 9

T Dot O Dot wrote:no idea

please elaborate

no one paragraph posts either, I want in-depth analysis with annotations & case studies... the whole 9

well you are not going to get that.

the main reason why some women were against women's-suffrage was because they understood what was most important, marriage. giving women the right to vote (in their opinion) hurt the institution of marriage because it divided a happy home politically. and how did that happen? you need to understand the differences between men and women (and they way they thought)

• when a man votes, he votes on what is in the best interests of his children (first), his wife second (so a man's family is pretty much everything to men who vote), and his country third
• when women vote, they tend to vote on what is in the best interest of women

see? and if this makes no sense to you, think about with respect to today's voting trends. today (politically), we have women's issues. there are NO men's issues, just women's issues. that is because politicians discovered a long time ago that women are emotional and vote first and foremost on issues that concern their own gender (something men, particularly married men, would NEVER do.) after that, the interests in their children are a very distant second for women politically. their husbands and country mean very little to them politically. this dramatic difference in voting priorities tends to exaserbate, divorce.

prior to women getting the vote, there would have been no Social Security. there would have been no Medicare, Medicaid, or any other ponzi-scheme based government social welfare system because a man's prime voting directive is doing what is in the best interest of his children (social security, medicare, and medicaid turns a man's children into tax slaves to the state, paying off debt they never created for the rest of their lives.) forget housing or benefits to single moms, send them to a home for wayward girls. all these things (these massive expansions in government) were the result of women voting for spending to make them more whole at the expense of someone, anyone, they didn't give a damn (even if it was at the expense of their own children)

this all comes back to cause-and-effect. both genders have heard that expression (and both know what it means) but only one gender actually allows that to impact their political choices, (that being men.) women simply choose NOT to allow cause-and-effect to impact how they vote on gender specific issues

I can't believe you are not already incarcerated.

Jungle Rat wrote:I can't believe you are not already incarcerated.

and I CAN believe that you were incarcerated because you married a woman who was emotional and was going to destroy you because she was scorned. she would lie in court with a straight face and do all that she could to harm your future because (in her mind) you did something to hurt her and she would get even. that is all the reason she needed, cause-and-effect be damned.

no rat, I don't want people like your ex-wife in the voting booth.