In my city of Greensboro, Jorge Cornell is running for city council.  He openly admits to being the local leader of the Latin Kings gang.

Personally, I think all gangs should be illegal, and barring that, they should at least be prohibited from running for office.  Criminals shouldn't have a chance to run government.

What do you guys think?

A politician with ties to organized crime?????

I do declare, I never heard of such a thing!
8)

Leave it up to the voters of Greensboro to decide if they want a Latin King for city council! 

I found some info here:

http://thetroublemaker.blogspot.com/2008/07/que-es-jorge-cornell.html

Funny, convicted felons often can't vote for those running for office, but, apparently, can run for office, at least in NC.

I'd like to think this guy is running on the platform of uniting gangs, ending violence and promoting racial harmony/eqaulity, but my BS detector is going off so loud it's hard to think.

As appalling as his running for council is, at least he admits up-front that he is a thug. We only find out with most politicians after the fact.

Ant

In my city of Greensboro, Jorge Cornell is running for city council.  He openly admits to being the local leader of the Latin Kings gang.

Personally, I think all gangs should be illegal, and barring that, they should at least be prohibited from running for office.  Criminals shouldn't have a chance to run government.

What do you guys think?


was he ever convicted of anything?
does he still have those ties or is he talking about finding a solution to fighting the gang problem? Who would have better ideas than someone with inside information on the infrastructure?
why did he leave the gang?
How old was he when he was in? How old is he now?


First and foremost- I have read anything on this and I am not going to because I don't really care... but rather than just judging this man for what he did in the past why not look into some these questions and see if maybe you'd be able to look past the ... um... past.

I mean the fact that he's come out and made the announcement shows he's got nothing to hide.... so who knows... maybe he realized it was a bad call and is trying to make amends for his former lifestyle.

In my city of Greensboro, Jorge Cornell is running for city council.  He openly admits to being the local leader of the Latin Kings gang.

Personally, I think all gangs should be illegal, and barring that, they should at least be prohibited from running for office.  Criminals shouldn't have a chance to run government.

What do you guys think?


AGREE! Take a look at the current L.A. Mayor..Villa???  Was a former gang member and was elected and has been known for commenting he'snever heard of illegals committing crimes..he was challenged on a recent prominent spree which SOME were BUT he picked it out that it wasSan Bernardino County and wasn't in LA County, in which her presides.     

In my city of Greensboro, Jorge Cornell is running for city council.  He openly admits to being the local leader of the Latin Kings gang.

Personally, I think all gangs should be illegal, and barring that, they should at least be prohibited from running for office.  Criminals shouldn't have a chance to run government.

What do you guys think?


Crips, Goldman Sachs, LK, Nortenos, Surenos, Democrats, MS-13, Republicans, LAPD, Bloods.  Ban the criminal gangs running for office, and there won't be any government.

What are you, some kind of freakin' anarchist? 

AGREE! Take a look at the current L.A. Mayor..Villa???   Was a former gang member and was elected and has been known for commenting he'snever heard of illegals committing crimes..he was challenged on a recent prominent spree which SOME were BUT he picked it out that it wasSan Bernardino County and wasn't in LA County, in which her presides.     


Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was not really a member of a gang, he was a member of a terrorist group.  In fact, he was the leader of one.  While he was a student at UCLA, he was the campus leader of MEChA.

MEChA, the "Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán) claims to be a group that supports unity of the Hispanic community.  But in truth, it is much more then that.

Their acronym is spanish for "Fuse", and their symbol is an eagle clutching a stick of dynamite in one talon, and a Macuahuitl in the other (a Macuahuitl is the traditional Aztec weapon, a wood sword with pieces of obsidian embedded in it).  Some of the things they support is the forced expulsion of all non-Mexicans from the "Conquered Territories", including California, Arizona, New Mexico, and California.  Their credo on their own web site states;

‘As Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán, we are a nationalist movement of Indigenous Gente that lay claim to the land that is ours by birthright. As a nationalist movement we seek to free our people from the exploitation of an oppressive society that occupies our land. Thus, the principle of nationalism serves to preserve the cultural traditions of La Familia de La Raza and promotes our identity as a Chicana/Chicano Gente.’

I have been watching this group for years, and they have always disturbed me.  And BTW, to them a person has to be of Mezoamerican blood, not just Hispanic.  So my wife and son would be evicted also.

http://stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXI/Issue_2/News/news1.shtml
http://www.calnews.com/archives/contreras164.htm

  And BTW, to them a person has to be of Mezoamerican blood, not just Hispanic.  So my wife and son would be evicted also.



Reminds me of when Mayor Daley (the younger) was elected Mayor of Chicago, he proceeded to appoint more people of hispanic origin to various city offices.  Some local chicano groups got all upset because he was appointing too many Puerto Ricans and people with South American roots.  ::)

This is sort of like the criticism of O'Bama because some groups think he is not "black enough" because since his father was from kenya, he did not have "slave blood" in him.

Racism, segregation, and divisionism die hard...

Personally, I think all gangs should be illegal, and barring that, they should at least be prohibited from running for office.  Criminals shouldn't have a chance to run government.
I think banning people from running for office is a dangerous thing for a democracy to do - it's too easy to extend the list of things to ban people from standing.

Besides, isn't that what democracy is for, to let the people choose who they want to govern them?

Perhaps it should be left up to the people.  As for being an ex-gang member.  I know someone who was in a Latino gang in New York City.  He's now one of the most sought after Psychologist in PA.  He never denied being in a gang.  In fact he's been known to deal with troubled youth.  He also specializes in diversity awareness. 

Personal Opinion:

It's the people's choice who runs for office, no one should be automatically left out of the running who is an active free member of society, even if there was a criminal background, I mean. . .many presidents have had run-ins with the law prior to their elected status, as long as they are up front about it--it's up to the people.  That said I would never vote for an active gang member, or even a prior gang member, I'd be worried about corruption.  But should they be allowed to run?  I think so.

Also Ant mentioned something about voting.  Most states have reinstated ex-felons voting rights, exceptions exist unfortunately, but I believe all tax paying citizens have a right to their. . .funny concept. . .civil rights the taxes we pay are meant to protect. . .that includes voting.

That's just me, nothing more to add on this subject. . .

Perhaps it should be left up to the people.  As for being an ex-gang member.  I know someone who was in a Latino gang in New York City.  He's now one of the most sought after Psychologist in PA.  He never denied being in a gang.  In fact he's been known to deal with troubled youth.  He also specializes in diversity awareness. 


If you grow up in a tough neighborhood, sometimes you're compelled to join a gang so you don't get your ass beat every day.

I wouldn't expect some people around here to understand that.

If you grow up in a tough neighborhood, sometimes you're compelled to join a gang so you don't get your ass beat every day.

I wouldn't expect some people around here to understand that.




Yeah, he did say it made his life easier. 

What are you, some kind of freakin' anarchist?  


Well admittedly, anarchy is starting to look very appealing right now....

http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/ledger-joker.jpg


I think banning people from running for office is a dangerous thing for a democracy to do - it's too easy to extend the list of things to ban people from standing.

Besides, isn't that what democracy is for, to let the people choose who they want to govern them?


To be honest, I'm starting to feel less and less supportive of democracy in general.

On the one hand, I'd like to ban certain people from positions of authority, but on the other hand, I'm starting to wonder if these positions of authority are the problem to begin with.  For example, is a city council really needed?  I think the county government could handle most of the same responsibilities as city government if we just streamlined the government more.

was he ever convicted of anything?
does he still have those ties or is he talking about finding a solution to fighting the gang problem? Who would have better ideas than someone with inside information on the infrastructure?
why did he leave the gang?
How old was he when he was in? How old is he now?


First and foremost- I have read anything on this and I am not going to because I don't really care... but rather than just judging this man for what he did in the past why not look into some these questions and see if maybe you'd be able to look past the ... um... past.

I mean the fact that he's come out and made the announcement shows he's got nothing to hide.... so who knows... maybe he realized it was a bad call and is trying to make amends for his former lifestyle.




Would you feel the same if he was a former KKK member?

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was not really a member of a gang, he was a member of a terrorist group.  In fact, he was the leader of one.  While he was a student at UCLA, he was the campus leader of MEChA.

MEChA, the "Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán) claims to be a group that supports unity of the Hispanic community.  But in truth, it is much more then that.

Their acronym is spanish for "Fuse", and their symbol is an eagle clutching a stick of dynamite in one talon, and a Macuahuitl in the other (a Macuahuitl is the traditional Aztec weapon, a wood sword with pieces of obsidian embedded in it).  Some of the things they support is the forced expulsion of all non-Mexicans from the "Conquered Territories", including California, Arizona, New Mexico, and California.  Their credo on their own web site states;

‘As Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán, we are a nationalist movement of Indigenous Gente that lay claim to the land that is ours by birthright. As a nationalist movement we seek to free our people from the exploitation of an oppressive society that occupies our land. Thus, the principle of nationalism serves to preserve the cultural traditions of La Familia de La Raza and promotes our identity as a Chicana/Chicano Gente.’

I have been watching this group for years, and they have always disturbed me.  And BTW, to them a person has to be of Mezoamerican blood, not just Hispanic.  So my wife and son would be evicted also.

http://stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXI/Issue_2/News/news1.shtml
http://www.calnews.com/archives/contreras164.htm



I'm sure he's just misunderstood.  ;) 

Would you feel the same if he was a former KKK member?


One name for you.  Robert Byrd.

One name for you.  Robert Byrd.


Good point.  Byrd's alright, but he should retire soon.

Also Ant mentioned something about voting.  Most states have reinstated ex-felons voting rights, exceptions exist unfortunately, but I believe all tax paying citizens have a right to their. . .funny concept. . .civil rights the taxes we pay are meant to protect. . .that includes voting.

I see where you're coming from, but I actually feel the exact opposite.  I've always thought voting should be a privilege, not a right.  I believe it should be earned rather than be an automatic right for all citizens.  Likewise, I believe certain actions should take that privilege away.

Granted, I haven't quite decided what criteria would be most appropriate for the privilege of voting.

Good point.  Byrd's alright, but he should retire soon.


Gotta give him credit though, he is a walking, talking example of progressive thinking.  :)

Gotta give him credit though, he is a walking, talking example of progressive thinking.  :)


On some topics, yes.  He's against gay marriage and still supports the War on Drugs though.

On some topics, yes.  He's against gay marriage and still supports the War on Drugs though.


Don't know of too many 91 year old West Virginians who are for gay marriage. :-\\

Don't know of too many 91 year old West Virginians who are for gay marriage. :-\\


Hey it was hard enough to get them to stop marrying their relatives.  It will take some time for them to accept homosexual etc marriages. 

Hey it was hard enough to get them to stop marrying their relatives.  It will take some time for them to accept homosexual etc marriages. 


Well, it is West Virgina.  Progress is about 100 years behind. ::)

Hey it was hard enough to get them to stop marrying their relatives.  


As opposed to out west o' Picksburgh where they don't even bother gettin' hitched!
:P

I see where you're coming from, but I actually feel the exact opposite.  I've always thought voting should be a privilege, not a right.  I believe it should be earned rather than be an automatic right for all citizens.  Likewise, I believe certain actions should take that privilege away.

Granted, I haven't quite decided what criteria would be most appropriate for the privilege of voting.



By our constitution though--that's not the way it is.  I respect your opinion, but feel that unless you did something that has to do with voter fraud, it is at the very least appalling to have laws & regulations passed that someone has to abide by who has no say whatsoever in the political process.  I don't see how that's even remotely fair.

If a felon works--he/she has to pay taxes

if a felon lives in the United States, he/she has to abide by the United States laws

if a felon lives in the district or legal boundaries governed by  particular elected officials, he/she has to abide by laws they pass

If that is the case, and the felon has 'paid his/her debt to society', why shouldn't they have a say in who these people who have power over them are. . .wasn't democracy based on a principal of 'we the people'. . .and aren't these felons who've served their time in fact, United States Citizens, and therefor people?

As opposed to out west o' Picksburgh where they don't even bother gettin' hitched!
:P


Indeed. Picksburgh is slowly evolving into a latte-sipping, Prius-driving, liberal-leaning, anything-goes kinda town.  :-\\

By our constitution though--that's not the way it is.  I respect your opinion, but feel that unless you did something that has to do with voter fraud, it is at the very least appalling to have laws & regulations passed that someone has to abide by who has no say whatsoever in the political process.  I don't see how that's even remotely fair.

If a felon works--he/she has to pay taxes

if a felon lives in the United States, he/she has to abide by the United States laws

if a felon lives in the district or legal boundaries governed by  particular elected officials, he/she has to abide by laws they pass

If that is the case, and the felon has 'paid his/her debt to society', why shouldn't they have a say in who these people who have power over them are. . .wasn't democracy based on a principal of 'we the people'. . .and aren't these felons who've served their time in fact, United States Citizens, and therefor people?


Good points...  I suppose it would require changing quite a bit of the Constitution.

When do the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, and AIG get their parade?




http://racismandnationalconsciousnessnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan-washington-dc-1.jpg

To be honest, I'm starting to feel less and less supportive of democracy in general.

On the one hand, I'd like to ban certain people from positions of authority, but on the other hand, I'm starting to wonder if these positions of authority are the problem to begin with.  For example, is a city council really needed?  I think the county government could handle most of the same responsibilities as city government if we just streamlined the government more.

Two different arguments, there...

To deal with the second one first - it makes sense for decisions to be made at as local a level as it's efficient to do so; unfortunately, central government doesn't usually like this very much, so keeps taking powers away from local/city councils until they're little more than talking shops.  IMO it would be nice if we could leave it up to local people to decide how much they actually wanted their local councils to do, but in practice most people don't have the time or the inclination to think about this sort of thing in the sort of depth it requires.

I've not been a fan of what we call democracy for quite a while - my view was reinforced during the '04 election when a survey came out showing that seventy-something percent of Bush voters believed his policies on key issues were different to what they actually were.  If a majority, or at best a very significant minority, is misguided when it comes to choosing between two candidates, what hope is there for real democracy?

As some parodist (can't think who ;) ) once said:
Well, so much for democracy
Look at what it's become:
Government of the stupid
By the bozos, for the dumb
The choice at general elections
Of whom we can elect
Is between prats and a***holes
No wonder it's all wrecked
The ship of state's a ship of fools
Some plonker at the prow
Well, ain't it so depressing, give me
Medication now

In the UK, falling participation in elections is worrying politicians, and they're desperately trying to make it easier for people to vote - not seeming to realize that it's perfectly easy enough as it stands if you have any kind of desire to vote.  We ought to make it harder to vote, make sure that anyone who wants to vote has at the very least read & understood the platform of the candidate for whom they want to vote (in an ideal world, all the other candidates, too.. but I'm being realistic, here).  The huge push for an increase in postal voting has allowed the potential for fraud and coercion on a scale never before possible: a little fraud has been proven, but coercion (especially within immigrant communities) is a lot harder to deal with.

Methinks I'd better get off this soap box before I start really ranting..

Would you feel the same if he was a former KKK member?


Valid point but different mindset.  People rarely rethink their racist ideals while maturity tends to give one a different perspective on crime.

As its been pointed out- not everyone who is in a gang joins because they think its such a wonderful thing. Sometimes its the only way to survive their environment.  so you know I go back to my original post.... before judging someone for something they did as a teen (I assume that his gang affiliation was from his teens to his early 20s) why not ask the questions I posed?

Would you want to be judge solely based on decisions you made when you your a teenager?

...I assume that his gang affiliation was from his teens to his early 20s...


If I understand correctly, that guy is the active leader of the LK in NC/GBO, not a former leader or member.

Ant

When do the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, and AIG get their parade?




http://racismandnationalconsciousnessnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan-washington-dc-1.jpg


As I recall the K.K.K. was deep in the national government in the early 20th century.  Very few people raised an eyebrow.  Why trust vigilante "good old boys" more than everyone else?

When do the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, and AIG get their parade?




http://racismandnationalconsciousnessnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan-washington-dc-1.jpg


Karma.

When do the Crips, Bloods,

L.A. riots

Latin Kings,

illegal immigrant rallies


and AIG get their parade?

AIG doesn't need a parade -- they get bailouts.

In the UK, falling participation in elections is worrying politicians, and they're desperately trying to make it easier for people to vote - not seeming to realize that it's perfectly easy enough as it stands if you have any kind of desire to vote.  We ought to make it harder to vote, make sure that anyone who wants to vote has at the very least read & understood the platform of the candidate for whom they want to vote (in an ideal world, all the other candidates, too.. but I'm being realistic, here).  The huge push for an increase in postal voting has allowed the potential for fraud and coercion on a scale never before possible: a little fraud has been proven, but coercion (especially within immigrant communities) is a lot harder to deal with.

Methinks I'd better get off this soap box before I start really ranting..


I agree.  This is why I believe voting should be a privilege and not a right.

Valid point but different mindset.  People rarely rethink their racist ideals while maturity tends to give one a different perspective on crime.

As its been pointed out- not everyone who is in a gang joins because they think its such a wonderful thing. Sometimes its the only way to survive their environment.  so you know I go back to my original post.... before judging someone for something they did as a teen (I assume that his gang affiliation was from his teens to his early 20s) why not ask the questions I posed?

Would you want to be judge solely based on decisions you made when you your a teenager?


I believe scrutiny should be fierce toward anyone that runs for an elected office.  This includes actions done in early adulthood.

By the way, I believe Ant is right.  Most of what I've read about him suggests he's still active in the gang.

I see where you're coming from, but I actually feel the exact opposite.  I've always thought voting should be a privilege, not a right.  I believe it should be earned rather than be an automatic right for all citizens.  Likewise, I believe certain actions should take that privilege away.

Granted, I haven't quite decided what criteria would be most appropriate for the privilege of voting.


Actually, this is not to far off from something that Robert Henlien wrote about.  And it was something that constantly got him labled as a fascist.

In Starship Troopers, Franchise was limited to those that had spent at least 2 years in "Federal Service".  In the book he stated that while most of those did their time in the military, there were other jobs available that would qualify.  Positions were everything from the armed forces, civic projects, even serving as medical experiment volunteers.

This was explained that only those that had served the nation itself should have any right in how it is run.  Thomas Jefferson was also a great believer in a Meritocracy.  The same can be said of early Socialists, who believed that those best able to govern would rise up based on their ability to lead.

And even today, SIngapore claims to be a Meritocracy. 

Personally, I do not have a major problem with a system as described by Mr. Henlein.  With so many urging things like "volunteerism" as a requirement for graduating from school, why not require people to volunteer service to the nation before being given the right to vote?

Of course, such a small percentage of people actually vote in this country in the first place, that more then likely it would change little in the number of voters.  And those that do vote would take their civic responsibility more seriously.

Personally, I do not have a major problem with a system as described by Mr. Henlein.  With so many urging things like "volunteerism" as a requirement for graduating from school, why not require people to volunteer service to the nation before being given the right to vote?


For that matter, let's bring back the property-owning requirement and literacy tests.  Why should you get a say in how the country is run just because you're a citizen? 
???

For that matter, let's bring back the property-owning requirement and literacy tests.  Why should you get a say in how the country is run just because you're a citizen? 
???


My thoughts exactly Max.

So those who are gay, disabled, fat, etc that cannot be admitted to the military shouldn't have the right to vote Mushroom?  I may be misunderstanding you, but not everyone can volunteer.  I did my selective service vocuher, or whatever it's called, when I was 18 at my local post office.  When I joined the Air National Guard, within two months I was given an entry level discharge because I "wasn't adapting to military lifestyle", I wasn't laughing at homophobic & fat jokes by the person in charge of our group and I didn't participate in conversation with them because it made me feel uncomfortable working with people who were judgmental etc. . .it's not for everyone.

My thoughts exactly Max.

So those who are gay, disabled, fat, etc that cannot be admitted to the military shouldn't have the right to vote Mushroom?  I may be misunderstanding you, but not everyone can volunteer.  I did my selective service vocuher, or whatever it's called, when I was 18 at my local post office.  When I joined the Air National Guard, within two months I was given an entry level discharge because I "wasn't adapting to military lifestyle", I wasn't laughing at homophobic & fat jokes by the person in charge of our group and I didn't participate in conversation with them because it made me feel uncomfortable working with people who were judgmental etc. . .it's not for everyone.


Mushroom did mention that there are plenty of ways to serve the government outside of the military.

Personally, I like this idea, because again, I don't quite think someone should have a voice unless they actually contribute more to the system.  I realize this runs counter to democracy in many respects, but I believe democracy itself is slowly proving to be less and less practical of a system of government.

Mushroom did mention that there are plenty of ways to serve the government outside of the military.

Personally, I like this idea, because again, I don't quite think someone should have a voice unless they actually contribute more to the system.  I realize this runs counter to democracy in many respects, but I believe democracy itself is slowly proving to be less and less practical of a system of government.


I pay taxes. . .that contributes to the system. . .it's not like I have a choice to be part of this country--I was born here and have no realistic options for alternatives, but as Americans we have a right to have a voice in the government.  It's unfortunate that many people do not get involved more on a political level and learn who they are voting for. . .but not all of us non-volunteers are politically stupid.

I pay taxes. . .that contributes to the system. . .it's not like I have a choice to be part of this country--I was born here and have no realistic options for alternatives, but as Americans we have a right to have a voice in the government.  It's unfortunate that many people do not get involved more on a political level and learn who they are voting for. . .but not all of us non-volunteers are politically stupid.


True.  I'm not exactly a volunteer myself.

I'm all in favor of a a civil service/military service system in lieu of student loans for college.  I think it's fair to say if you don't have the money to pay for college, you can do two years in the army or two years in an AmeriCorps-type program.

However, voting is fundamental.  

When you say "contribute more to the system," how are you defining "contribute" and "system," and more than whom, and how much more, and more of what, for that matter?

???

I'm all in favor of a a civil service/military service system in lieu of student loans for college.  I think it's fair to say if you don't have the money to pay for college, you can do two years in the army or two years in an AmeriCorps-type program.

However, voting is fundamental.  

When you say "contribute more to the system," how are you defining "contribute" and "system," and more than whom, and how much more, and more of what, for that matter?

???


If civil service in one way or another (military or non-military) became a requirement for voting, then a mandatory term of say 2 years could be the standard.

"More" would be in reference to how much the average person contributes vs. this standard.

If civil service in one way or another (military or non-military) became a requirement for voting, then a mandatory term of say 2 years could be the standard.

"More" would be in reference to how much the average person contributes vs. this standard.



What standard?  Standard of what?  If the average person excels, the new excellent becomes the new average...so I guess you'll reset standards higher and higher until all humanity reaches Nirvana in one go!
:D

What standard?  Standard of what?  If the average person excels, the new excellent becomes the new average...so I guess you'll reset standards higher and higher until all humanity reaches Nirvana in one go!
:D


That's like saying we shouldn't raise educational standards because we'll just unrealistically expect people to get smarter and smarter.

That's like saying we shouldn't raise educational standards because we'll just unrealistically expect people to get smarter and smarter.


What I'm saying is you seem to have a need to judge, separate, and exclude people from voting and doing so under the rubric of the betterment of society.

I don't buy it.

Forced labor in order to enjoy the fruits of a free society? 

Forced labor in order to enjoy the fruits of a free society? 


I believe people are entitled to free speech and many other things, but I don't necessarily believe people are entitled to vote.  So yeah, it is forced labor, so to speak, but what society is truly "free" anyway?  We all have limits to our freedom -- there are only varying degrees of it.

What I'm saying is you seem to have a need to judge, separate, and exclude people from voting and doing so under the rubric of the betterment of society.

I don't buy it.




I think we all have that need to a degree.  I'm just more honest and upfront about it.

For example, the Left hides behind Affirmative Action for their own version of this.  They say it's about equality, but it's really about entitlement and race-baiting.

The Right hides behind things like national security or "Christian morality."

I'm simply proposing a way to earn voting rights rather than just handing them out to everyone.

I think we all have that need to a degree.  I'm just more honest and upfront about it.

For example, the Left hides behind Affirmative Action for their own version of this.  They say it's about equality, but it's really about entitlement and race-baiting.

The Right hides behind things like national security or "Christian morality."

I'm simply proposing a way to earn voting rights rather than just handing them out to everyone.


In spite of a level of futility found on your average FOX News panel, I will proceed:

Who gets to set the standard for when we have earned the right to vote?

In spite of a level of futility found on your average FOX News panel, I will proceed:

Who gets to set the standard for when we have earned the right to vote?


Those who begin to weaken in their argument resort to insults, but I will proceed.

People in power would set the standard, but again, how is this any different from setting any other standards?  It's not average Joe on the street setting them... ever.

Those who begin to weaken in their argument resort to insults, but I will proceed.

People in power would set the standard, but again, how is this any different from setting any other standards?  It's not average Joe on the street setting them... ever.


And thus we demonstrate the irreconcilable difference between the authoritarian versus the anti-authoritarian mindset. 

The original topic was something about gang members running for office, I think?  ;)

Re: voting, I can't vote. Those that take this right for granted need to be bitch-slapped. Those, like me, who can't vote, why the **** should we pay taxes? I can't contribute to who runs society, but I still have to pay for it? Someone here care to explain that one to me?

We are all born with the right to vote: less than half do. Let Jose Cuervo or whatever his name is run for office in NC: if the citizens vote him in, then may they get all that they deserve.

Ant

The original topic was something about gang members running for office, I think?  ;)

Re: voting, I can't vote. Those that take this right for granted need to be bitch-slapped. Those, like me, who can't vote, why the **** should we pay taxes? I can't contribute to who runs society, but I still have to pay for it? Someone here care to explain that one to me?

We are all born with the right to vote: less than half do. Let Jose Cuervo or whatever his name is run for office in NC: if the citizens vote him in, then may they get all that they deserve.

Ant



Good points...  Obviously, our society was founded on the protest of no taxation without representation.

In a way, I wonder if maybe the best approach is to make it a trade.

In exchange for not being able to vote and not being able to fund any lobbyism whatsoever, you could be exempted from income and property taxation.  I think a lot of people would be willing to make that trade.

You'd still have to pay consumption taxes, but that would account for the public services you still use.

So, I guess felons would be stripped of the right to vote, but they'd also not have to pay income or property taxes.

Good points...  Obviously, our society was founded on the protest of no taxation without representation.

In a way, I wonder if maybe the best approach is to make it a trade.

In exchange for not being able to vote and not being able to fund any lobbyism whatsoever, you could be exempted from income and property taxation.  I think a lot of people would be willing to make that trade.

You'd still have to pay consumption taxes, but that would account for the public services you still use.

So, I guess felons would be stripped of the right to vote, but they'd also not have to pay income or property taxes.


I would deliberately lose my right to vote so I wouldn't have to pay income or property taxes and I could do any kind of lobbying I want.  I mean, why would I need the vote?  Your system gives me 100 times the power!'
;D

Oh, Mac, you do crack me up!

We are all born with the right to vote: less than half do. Let Jose Cuervo or whatever his name is run for office in NC: if the citizens vote him in, then may they get all that they deserve.

Have you noticed that the harder (and more dangerous) it is to vote, the more people seem to want to do so?

Maybe we ought to set up shooting galleries so you have to run a gauntlet in order to get through to the polling booth ;)

But seriously, I'd like to have a requirement that in order to vote you have to be able to demonstrate that you know who/what you're voting for at the very least.  In a similar vein, I'd like to see a standard sort of range of psychometric tests for all candidates published so that electors get a chance to know something meaningful about who wants their votes: something that would give people the chance to make up their minds rationally rather than having to choose based on who puts out the most slickly-produced adverts.  After all, it's probably better to know that a potential leader is a disturbed sociopath before they start world war 3

My thoughts exactly Max.

So those who are gay, disabled, fat, etc that cannot be admitted to the military shouldn't have the right to vote Mushroom?  I may be misunderstanding you, but not everyone can volunteer.  I did my selective service vocuher, or whatever it's called, when I was 18 at my local post office.  When I joined the Air National Guard, within two months I was given an entry level discharge because I "wasn't adapting to military lifestyle", I wasn't laughing at homophobic & fat jokes by the person in charge of our group and I didn't participate in conversation with them because it made me feel uncomfortable working with people who were judgmental etc. . .it's not for everyone.


Notice, both Mr. Henlein and I both said "Federal Service", not "Military Service".

This can be military, yes.  But why not include things like the Peace Corps, Civilian Conservation Corps, service with a State Forestry division planting trees and fighting fires, heck, even form groups that travel picking up trash on the side of the freeways.

There are tens of thousands of things that can be done, if only there were enough people to do them.  While a lot of people did not agree with FDR's "New Deal", his alphabet soup of programs like the CCC did put a lot of people to work, and accomplished a lot of good things that are still with us.

A lot of the campgrounds in our public forests were made way back then under the CCC program.  Along with fire roads, access roads, water access, dams, replanting programs, and resoration of wildlife habitats.  And in the years that followed, a lot of the kids in those programs became avid campers and hunters and fishers because of their experiences.  In many ways, the early Conservation movement of the 1960's is descended from their efforts.

And there is still a demand for a CCC, even though the program ended in 1942.  Between 1991-1993, I ran a computer store in Vallejo California called "CCC Computers".  At least 3 or 4 times a week I would get a phone call from somebody wanting to volunteer their services.  A few would even get upset when I would say we were not a Government Agency, but a private business.  We even got a lawsuit from one, claiming we were illegally attempting to emulate a Government Organization.

Re: voting, I can't vote. Those that take this right for granted need to be bitch-slapped. Those, like me, who can't vote, why the **** should we pay taxes? I can't contribute to who runs society, but I still have to pay for it? Someone here care to explain that one to me?

We are all born with the right to vote: less than half do. Let Jose Cuervo or whatever his name is run for office in NC: if the citizens vote him in, then may they get all that they deserve.


The funny thing is, in my family I am the only one eligable to vote.

My wife has lived here since 1979, but has never taken the final step to become a citizen.  My son is a convicted felon on parole (and currently incarcerated again).

But with so few people even bothering to vote, why is this a big issue?  To me, a right that is not exercised is a right lost. 

Politician=Criminal

'nuff said!

Politician=Criminal

'nuff said!


Not all.  I know someone who ran for U.S. Senate and didn't win because he was on the up and up.  In other words he's a decent guy who wanted to make a difference.

Not all.  I know someone who ran for U.S. Senate and didn't win because he was on the up and up.  In other words he's a decent guy who wanted to make a difference.

I wouldn't mind betting the majority of politicians are like that when they enter the game - definitely in this country, where politics is slightly less dynastic than on that side of the pond.

But those who stay decent and wanting to make a difference usually get trodden on by the ones whose only aim is to climb higher up the greasy pole, and rarely make it near the top.

Not all.  I know someone who ran for U.S. Senate and didn't win because he was on the up and up.  In other words he's a decent guy who wanted to make a difference.



There are usually many reasons for a person not winning an election, I don't think you could point to the fact that he was on the up and up as the sole reason. 

I wouldn't mind betting the majority of politicians are like that when they enter the game - definitely in this country, where politics is slightly less dynastic than on that side of the pond.

But those who stay decent and wanting to make a difference usually get trodden on by the ones whose only aim is to climb higher up the greasy pole, and rarely make it near the top.


Yeah well he had to learn the hard way.  If you don't adhere to the political machine you have no chance.

There are usually many reasons for a person not winning an election, I don't think you could point to the fact that he was on the up and up as the sole reason. 


Actually that is the reason why he didn't win.  U.S. Senator Robert Casey did not want to be senator, he wanted to be governor.  Ed Rendell wanted no challengers so when Hillary Clinton and Harry Reed ask him who he recommended to run against Santorum he suggested Casey.  Casey was up against Alan Sandals and my friend Chuck Pennacchio in the primary.Ed Rendell (being the head of the Democratic Party in PA) used everything from phone calls telling them to drop out or telling that might have endorsed him or Alan "do that and you will not move a head politically.  Chuck ran an honest campaign and he talked about the issues.  Casey was not permitted to talk about the issues for fear that he might have an opinion.  His nick-name was Bobby the Duck to Republicans who wanted to know where he stood on anything.  Ask anyone from PA about Ed Rendell and his nasty political machine.

Not all.  I know someone who ran for U.S. Senate and didn't win because he was on the up and up.  In other words he's a decent guy who wanted to make a difference.


I'm not saying that's 100%, but that's how it seems.

The ones who are True Democrats and Republicans are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, respectfully.

I'm not saying that's 100%, but that's how it seems.

The ones who are True Democrats and Republicans are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, respectfully.


Notice how rare they are in congress?

Notice how rare they are in congress?


You mean Kooch and RP?

You mean Kooch and RP?


Out of all the members of congress and you come up with two that have integrity and ethics.  What percentage is that?

Out of all the members of congress and you come up with two that have integrity and ethics.  What percentage is that?


Not much, even my dad said that those two are the ideals for their parties...but will be overlooked no matter what!

Not much, even my dad said that those two are the ideals for their parties...but will be overlooked no matter what!


Do you remember Senator Paul Wellstone or were you too young?

I wouldn't mind betting the majority of politicians are like that when they enter the game - definitely in this country, where politics is slightly less dynastic than on that side of the pond.

But those who stay decent and wanting to make a difference usually get trodden on by the ones whose only aim is to climb higher up the greasy pole, and rarely make it near the top.


Well, to be fair, Britain has only recently ended hereditary positions in your House of Lords, right?

I would deliberately lose my right to vote so I wouldn't have to pay income or property taxes and I could do any kind of lobbying I want.  I mean, why would I need the vote?  Your system gives me 100 times the power!'
;D

Oh, Mac, you do crack me up!


Um...  you do realize I mentioned earlier that lobbying would be illegal for those who can't vote.  Any confirmations of lobbying funding would result in a harsh prison sentence.

Um...  you do realize I mentioned earlier that lobbying would be illegal for those who can't vote.  Any confirmations of lobbying funding would result in a harsh prison sentence.


No lobbying?  No voting?

You're not big on the Constitution are you?
:P

No lobbying?  No voting?

You're not big on the Constitution are you?
:P


Hey, my second proposal was halfway voluntary.  You could choose to pay your taxes and be able to vote and lobby, or you could choose to not pay them but not vote and not lobby.

Historically, that actually would be consistent with the basis of our country -- "no taxation without representation."  I'm just making use of the other side of what that implies.

For example...  imagine how different things could have turned out if Britain had just said, "Ok, we won't tax you, but you're not getting representation either."

Well, to be fair, Britain has only recently ended hereditary positions in your House of Lords, right?

True.. but only a rump of the hereditary peers actually did anything (and those that were active & agreed to be "useful" were given a stay of execution).  But I'm not sure of the relevance of hereditary peerage to the greasy pole of politics.. except that the one major benefit of the hereditaries was that they were independent of it (another reason for the Government to want to get rid of them, especially when considering their historical conservative bias).

It's also worth noting that members of the House of Lords don't receive a salary, which is probably why not many of them could actually afford to be working peers.

Do you remember Senator Paul Wellstone or were you too young?


Who's Paul Wellstone?

Who's Paul Wellstone?


Paul Wellstone was from Minnesota.  He was a progressive and pretty outspoken.  He died in a one engine plane crash.  Franken has Wellstone's seat and he patterns himself after Wellstone.

Paul Wellstone was from Minnesota.  He was a progressive and pretty outspoken.  He died in a one engine plane crash.  Franken has Wellstone's seat and he patterns himself after Wellstone.


His wife and daughter also died in the crash.  I cried that day.

Paul Wellstone was from Minnesota.  He was a progressive and pretty outspoken.  He died in a one engine plane crash.  Franken has Wellstone's seat and he patterns himself after Wellstone.


What year did Wellstone die?

During the 2000 senate campaign,  which is why Norm Coleman had the seat.  The dems couldn't replace Wellstone fast enough.

His wife and daughter also died in the crash.  I cried that day.


Yeah, I did too.  I stopped caring about anything political for like a year after that.  Wellstone was pure hope.

True.. but only a rump of the hereditary peers actually did anything (and those that were active & agreed to be "useful" were given a stay of execution).  But I'm not sure of the relevance of hereditary peerage to the greasy pole of politics.. except that the one major benefit of the hereditaries was that they were independent of it (another reason for the Government to want to get rid of them, especially when considering their historical conservative bias).

It's also worth noting that members of the House of Lords don't receive a salary, which is probably why not many of them could actually afford to be working peers.




Anything that moves away from hereditary positions is good in my book.

What year did Wellstone die?


October 25, 2002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone

October 25, 2002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone


How many people wanted to choke Jesse Ventura for his behavior at the funeral.  What a immature twit. >:(

Anything that moves away from hereditary positions is good in my book.


Does that go for Monarchies or just the "Privileged"?

Anything that moves away from hereditary positions is good in my book.

The funny thing is... while they were there, I would probably have agreed with you.  Now they're not, I start looking around at the people nominated as Lords or elected as MPs and think that I actually prefer a lot of the hereditaries, the ones who treated it as a duty & a service.

On the monarchy front: I would far rather have our current Queen (and even Charles) as head of state compared to pretty much anyone elected to any job in this country.  I know it's an anachronism, and hereditary privilege is not something I would approve of on a purely intellectual basis.. yet not only am I not convinced that democracy would provide a better solution, I am 99% convinced that voting for a head of state would leave us with somebody considerably worse.

Anything that moves away from hereditary positions is good in my book.



police? firefighters? presidents?