[US Elections] November 2nd

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Lizard Of Oz

Demented Avenger
Oct 25, 1998
10,593
16
38
In a cave & grooving with a Pict
www.nsa.gov
Land, a house, you know, how it was defined at the founding of the country. Not like OMFG i have a video game, so therefore I have property.

Well, at the founding of the country you also had to be a white male Christian. Will these same restrictions apply as well?

Also, this "property" you speak of; must you own it outright, or will having mortgage also deny you the right to vote?
 
Last edited:

Larkin

Gone
Apr 4, 2006
1,984
0
0
41
Well, at the founding of the country you also had to be a white male Christian. Will these same restrictions apply well?

Lol, Christian? Anyway, like I said that was done for a reason that didn't have to do with actual beliefs of anyone and didn't serve the purpose, so no.

Also, this "property" you speak of; must you own it outright, or will having mortgage also deny you the right to vote?

Lol, well to perfectly honest I don't believe you ever actually own property in this country anymore, but yes, a mortgage would be fine.
 
Last edited:

Larkin

Gone
Apr 4, 2006
1,984
0
0
41
Democrats are destroying the country.

Yes, that is what I've been saying. :rolleyes: If people really got democrats out of what I've said here, they have reading problems. If people really understood anything they would realize BOTH parties are progressive and BOTH parties are the enemy. I might hate the democrats more but that is only because they are more progressive. And anyway, that is besides the point.
 
Last edited:

Peavey

Rattus Norvegicus
Jul 17, 2001
2,935
1
38
Hey Larkin, you like artichoke? Y'artichoke on THIS, commie :lol:

missile1-300x293.jpg
 
Last edited:

d3tox

Face down in a pool of his own vomit.
Apr 8, 2008
1,045
0
0
END WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Peavey

Rattus Norvegicus
Jul 17, 2001
2,935
1
38
What's with the Sound of Silence, Larkin? Too dumb to play ball with me? Why don't you make like Simon,
writing_frame.jpg
and Garfunk yerself.
 

M.A.D.X.W

Active Member
Aug 24, 2008
4,486
5
38
If it was a limited edition video game, does that count or should I start saving for a house.
 

Zxanphorian

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Jul 1, 2002
4,480
0
36
34
PA USA
Visit site
Did I say rich white adult males? No, I said responsible, fully affected, and life experience. Owning property is a great measuring tool. There needs to me more, but its a great starting point.

But the folks back then generally thought that that demographic of people knew best for the country.

Ok, now to the property part. What constitutes enough property? Does a cramped single-room flat count as property? What about folks who live in the Projects? What about apprentices who live in the same dwelling as their masters? How are you going to generate a cut-off of whether they are able to vote or not, without discriminating against a certain demographic?

Also, it is not a great measurement tool. Folks who own property would usually have a fairly homogeneous life story/experience. If they are the only people who are able to vote, then they will vote for their best interest. Don't kid yourself about that. Thus, it would be very improbable that their voting will be best for the country.

No, its not. It ensures that people aren't voting just for self benefit or just for some cause. And like has been said a million times the founders WANTED the blacks to vote. It just wasn't possible to do so and get many states to join.

If you restrict someone from voting for self benefit or just for some cause, what is left? I say nothing, expect for ****s and giggles. What's your take?

Also, so states' rights were at fault here?


Not to me. There needs to be a way to make sure who votes knows what they doing does so for right reasons.

That sounds really totalitarian and dictatorial. What ever happened to the personal freedoms from the government (who would be the only group who would enact these restrictions you talk about by the way) intrusion? Also again, what makes the "responsible, fully affected, and life experience" cutoff? How are you going to do this without it being discriminatory?


Sounds like you would like only the people to vote would be your own cohorts, who always do things for the "right" reasons.
 
Last edited:

Larkin

Gone
Apr 4, 2006
1,984
0
0
41
But the folks back then generally thought that that demographic of people knew best for the country.

Yes, generally they did.

Ok, now to the property part. What constitutes enough property? Does a cramped single-room flat count as property? What about folks who live in the Projects? What about apprentices who live in the same dwelling as their masters? How are you going to generate a cut-off of whether they are able to vote or not, without discriminating against a certain demographic?

Property is described as owning land. Simple enough. If you live on someone else property that clearly doesn't quality. Part of the point is to cut out certain groups. Aka, the person that doesn't want to work so he votes for the guy that wants to extend unemployment benefits forever. The entire point is you put cut offs. You don't want people that are asking for benefit that is only done for their self interest, that they don't have to pay for. That is the entire point. Anyone can qualify in any group, but most likely, yes, the poor guy, won't be able to vote until he is no longer poor.

Also, it is not a great measurement tool. Folks who own property would usually have a fairly homogeneous life story/experience. If they are the only people who are able to vote, then they will vote for their best interest. Don't kid yourself about that. Thus, it would be very improbable that their voting will be best for the country.

All kinds of people from all kind of backgrounds own land. The way they got there is all different, but generally they do similar things to get there and that way they got there is the reason they are best fit to vote.

If you restrict someone from voting for self benefit or just for some cause, what is left? I say nothing, expect for ****s and giggles. What's your take?

People are supposed to vote for what is best for the country, not what is best for themselves. That is the entire premise behind it. If you vote right everyone's life get better, because you aren't voting for the benefit of yourself, but for everyone.

Also, so states' rights were at fault here?

The federal government changed everything.

That sounds really totalitarian and dictatorial. What ever happened to the personal freedoms from the government

It was set up like this from the beginning. Its about protecting the rights, and liberty of the citizens.

(who would be the only group who would enact these restrictions you talk about by the way) intrusion?

The fed, which wouldn't do it anyway, but there the ones to do it.

Also again, what makes the "responsible, fully affected, and life experience" cutoff?

The people that aren't trying all that hard, get everything under someones else wallet are most likely not driven and most likely don't own a house are not responsible. These are exactly the kind of people this is supposed to cut off. Responsible means responsible people in society.

Fully affected is usually people that have to pay taxes, own property, have a job, and are generally integrated into society and are productive citizens. The rules would take this into account and again that is why property is a good measuring tool.

Life experience is self explanatory. Life experience is measured in your accomplishments in this case, which I wouldn't imagine anything else could measure it.

You might of noticed they are basically the same. That is on purpose. The entire point is that these people would be best fit to vote because every thing that happens affects them and they would go into it knowing what the world is about.

How are you going to do this without it being discriminatory?

The rules are going to be set. If you don't qualify you don't qualify. Everyone will be treated equal in that way.
 
Last edited:

Larkin

Gone
Apr 4, 2006
1,984
0
0
41

Seriously everyone CAN reach the qualifications. It wouldn't discriminate to the point where certain groups can't reach the goal. And like I said, the entire point is only to allow the responsible people to vote with life experience. In order to ensure that this happens it has to be defined.
 
Last edited:

Trynant

Manic Brawler
Jan 31, 2002
2,019
1
38
Quiet Island
trynant.wordpress.com
I am enjoy this thread so much more because Larkin is on my ignore list. That way I can only guess from the somewhat revealing quotes of just how stupid his arguments in this thread are. It's like lingerie, except with lolitics instead of sexy.

Hmm, I need to register.
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
I can only guess from the somewhat revealing quotes of just how stupid his arguments in this thread are.
aw, you should definitely take him off ignore.
his hyper-conservative, Civil War-era logic is pretty entertaining to read.

it's made up of biased and unrealistic assumptions about society such as, but not limited to:

  • poor people and those who don't own property aren't affected by legislation.
  • poor people and those who don't own property have no life experience and know nothing about the world.
  • nothing ever happens that affects poor people and those who don't own property.
  • anyone who doesn't own property must be poor and/or lazy/unmotivated/stupid/exploitative/unworthy/irresponsible.
he thinks that only people with property should be allowed to vote.
but then he talks about civil rights and individual liberty.

how can someone talk about protecting liberty and rights while simultaneously pushing the idea of selective voting privileges based on adherence to a discriminatory and unjust economic standard?

how does one reconcile this issue within their mind?

oh wait, I know.
they're f*cking crazy.
 

Zxanphorian

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Jul 1, 2002
4,480
0
36
34
PA USA
Visit site
aw, you should definitely take him off ignore.
his hyper-conservative, Civil War-era logic is pretty entertaining to read.

it's made up of biased and unrealistic assumptions about society such as, but not limited to:

  • poor people and those who don't own property aren't affected by legislation.
  • poor people and those who don't own property have no life experience and know nothing about the world.
  • nothing ever happens that affects poor people and those who don't own property.
  • anyone who doesn't own property must be poor and/or lazy/unmotivated/stupid/exploitative/unworthy/irresponsible.
he thinks that only people with property should be allowed to vote.
but then he talks about civil rights and individual liberty.

how can someone talk about protecting liberty and rights while simultaneously pushing the idea of selective voting privileges based on adherence to a discriminatory and unjust economic standard?

how does one reconcile this issue within their mind?

oh wait, I know.
they're f*cking crazy.

That is exactly what I wanted Larkin to expose. And deliver he has.

Oh, and "no taxation without representation." Lets extrapolate that to "no legislation without representation." Legislation is whatever the people who are voted in write up and enact. Representation is the act of voting. With those definitions, you can do the math.
 
Last edited:

pine

Official Photography Thread Appreciator
Apr 29, 2001
6,137
0
0
IRL
Visit site
Seriously, I don't know why you would bother posting responses to Larkin. Jerking off to tentacle pr0n would literally be a more productive use of your time.
 

Larkin

Gone
Apr 4, 2006
1,984
0
0
41
When making policy you can't make exceptions for every kind of person. You make general rules that are more time than not true. If you allow every dumbass to vote you aren't going to get good results. That is a fact. You guys can call me crazy, and act like being a conservative is horrible if you want, but my beliefs on the issue are basically the same as the founders and if I'm crazy so are they. So really **** you.

and here is a wonderful idea, voting is a privilege because not everyone can do it, so you have to make rules on who can have it. It is NOT a right, nor was it ever been,

I think its pretty obvious that people fail at voting and some people have looked into the reasons, the founders are some of those people. Maybe instead of saying its a right like a bunch of clueless twits you can actually realize something about it.

You can talk about limiting access to voting because it has nothing to do with Liberty or rights and to ensure that these two things stay true you have to filter who can vote. That is a fact. But I guess I'm talking to people that don't see liberty disappearing around them..so whatever, this is completely pointless.

Oh and btw, who gets the selfish vote in the country? Oh right you guys. How many of them are going OMFG you can't take away my programs? You guys are clearly looking out for the country. What was spending again and what is the order of spending. What is first, second and third? And what did you guys want more of? Oh right, more spending programs and agencies. Yeah, no problem with anything.

And civil war logic? Oh right, the founding was in the ****ing civil war. **** you.

But yeah, I'm a ****ing idiot. Even if you can't actually put a ****ing argument together WHY everyone should be allowed to vote. Great job guys.

And btw, I'm a libertarian if anything, so yeah, time to learn jacks.
 
Last edited: