Disney and Universal score waivers to offer limited health plans for part-timers

Seriously? Have you ever been to school? Any question on any test is easily answerable if you look for the question. Does everyone pass every test?

Neither of us are being high and mighty, we're using common sense. He's suggesting a test that you'd have to study for in order to pass, one that is fair to everyone. You know, like the math test you took in 10th grade and failed.

The Tea Party folks I have talked with or heard talk (my parents went to Becks 828 rally and are included in that group) are hypocrites. Essentially they are just republicans with a different marketing slogan. Government has been spending like druken sailors for a long time now. Why start complaining now? Social security and Medicare are insolvent now and have been for a long time (at least if you are looking at them from a long term perspective -- and now the long term is the next couple of years). Our $50+ trillion of unfunded liabilities were not created in 2008. So why complain now?

And how many Tea Party folks want to cut all federal spending or just the spending that doesn't affect them or that they don't like? Unfortunately, its too many of the ones that I have seen. I am sure its not all of them. But I think its too many of them. Cut everything? Yes. How about social security? Well not that, we need it for our retirement and we paid into it. How about Medicare? No not that either as we can't afford to pay our own healthcare (or even more of it). How about defense? No not that either. Ok fine. Glad to see you are serious about cutting our deficits/debt.

When I was younger I thought that there were enough folks who believed in truly limited government to actually have it. As I have gotten older, I have come to realize that just isn't the case. Too many folks only pay lip service to it.

And yeah the new folks in Congress got a deal for tax cuts (essentially increased spending). Giving Obama another stimulus plan that he would have never gotten directly. But no cuts in spending. Not sure I see that as an improvement or reason for any confidence that anything will actually change. Hope I am wrong. History unforunately would indicate that I am not.

Tekwardo said:
He's suggesting a test that you'd have to study for in order to pass, one that is fair to everyone. You know, like the math test you took in 10th grade and failed.

Bingo.

I honestly can't believe we're having this as a side conversation.

Yeah dj passes the test! He knows how to spell "bingo". He gets to vote.

Did you have to sing that cute little song that you learned in kindergarten to make sure you spelled it right?

I think we are having this as a side conversation because neither of you have explained your act of intolerance for those you percieve not to be as smart as you. In a thread where we keep talking about whether the minority who belive they know better than the majority should rule...this is not a side conversation. It is a prime example of the behavior.

Somepeopleare born into horrendous, effectively-inescapable situationswhere theyhave no choice but to "suck the teet" or whatever lameeuphemism youwant to use.

One of you has made it clear that you have all sorts of sympathy for those born into bad situations. Why would you not demonstrate the same act of sympathy for those that are born into low IQ's?

Personally, I think it might be prudent to backtrack from that position. But maybe if you add a few more sighs next time, you might convince yourselves that the glaring hypocrisy of your position does not really exist.

djDaemon said:
But do you not want them making decisions for you simply because you don't like them? Or do you not like them because of the types of decisions they'd make for you?

Good point, but I'm talking totally hypothetical. I have no real world situation to draw upon.

I'm ok with not voting for someone for no reason other than, "I just don't like the guy."

I would never suggest asking questions that don't have definitive answers. And there are most certainly questions that do have a yes/no or right/wrong or otherwise definitive answer.

I don't doubt that. But that's not my point. My point is that the larger picture doesn't have a right and wrong answer and you're trying to give it one with the test.

And that's still ignoring the core point that you're trying to say who can and can't vote based on your criteria. Would I be right to say we should go back and not let people vote on race or gender?

Because to me, "Those silly ignornant people don't know how to vote correctly" sure sounds a lot like, "Those silly black people don't know how to vote correctly" or "Those silly women don't know how to vote correctly."

And while it seems like an extreme comparison, at the core all of those statements say the same thing - You're a lesser citizen. You're not capable of voting. It's just different criteria. My mind is blown that this conversation is even happening.

For the record, some other discriminatory criteria for weeding out bad voters that I'd like to suggest include:

- running a four-minute mile
- general hygene skills
- winning a cooking competition is the vein of Hell's Kitchen
- the ability to play the drum solo from In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

I think we are having this as a side conversation because neither of you have explained your act of intolerance for those you percieve not to be as smart as you.

First, you weren't in the side conversation. Shades asked a question, the question was answered (quote simply, I might add), and Shades failed to use common sense. Second, I never said nor implied he wasn't as smart as myself, nor did DJ, I implied a lack of common sense. I'd like to think at this point he slowed down and actually read what was being said, and applied common sense to it.

Again, annoyance is one thing, your continued insults are another.

In the past, those without the right to vote variously included: Blacks, Women, non-landowners, illiterates (judged on local standards), and those between the ages of 18 and 21.

In NO way would I like to go back to those "simpler" times....but having a reasonably intelligent and reasonably informed voting public couldn't really do us THAT much harm, could it?

I think that in most cases, folks who support some type of voting test to vote are really just seeking to have more folks who vote/think like they do.

I'm ok with not voting for someone for no reason other than, "I just don't like the guy."

And I'm okay with them not voting for someone that they don't like. Aamilj stated that Obama was going against the Tea Party, and he pondered if the Tea Party ideas were representative of the ideas of majority at large, and Obama thusly is ignoring the majority at large.

I made the comment that its kind of hard for the Tea Party to represent the majority at large's ideas when they don't even know why they believe what they do. I'm not saying that the majority of people don't disagree with Obama, I'm just saying that the Tea Party seems to be fighting an enemy for reasons they don't understand, and I'd like to think that the majority of people that dislike Obama can actually pinpoint a reason, now that he is elected, as to why they want him out of office, other than "I just do".

^Well, he's too darned liberal for one. Well, unless you actually look at the guy's record since he's been POTUS. ;)

Aamilj said:
Why would you not demonstrate the same act of sympathy for those that are born into low IQ's?

I'm not even sure why I'm responding, since you're clearly not reading what I'm writing, but... Once again, I'm not advocating for an IQ test, or that people need to be able to name every element on a periodic table.

People need not be a certified genius to get a driver's license, yet it requires a test. I see a voting test as being no different.

Lord Gonchar said:
- running a four-minute mile

Unless we're voting on who to send to the Olympics, not a relevant metric.

- general hygene skills

Unless we're voting on who is the most beautiful, not a relevant metric.

- winning a cooking competition is the vein of Hell's Kitchen

Unless we're voting on who should cook every dinner for everyone in the US, not a valid metric.

Race and gender (and my mind is equally blown that such comparison would be drawn) are arbitrary metrics when it comes to political and social events. Understanding the basic principles of how our government works IS a valid metric.

djDaemon said:
...not a relevant metric.

I knew you'd use the relevant metric. But I needed it to go there for the next point:

Who decides what is? What if I don't care about Obamacare either way. If it passes, fine. If it doesn't, fine. It doesn't affect my voting decisions.

But since I fail the test because I think there will be death panels, I can't vote because I don't know enough about the issues that you feel are important.

GoBucks89 said:
I think that in most cases, folks who support some type of voting test to vote are really just seeking to have more folks who vote/think like they do.

I was trying not to go there, but yeah, I think you're right.

Understanding the basic principles of how our government works IS a valid metric.

I don't understand the principles of how electricity works, should I not be allowed to use it? I don't understand the principles on how LIMs work, should I not ride launched coasters (And no, Dave, that wasn't an invitation at this point to try and explain it ;) )?

Without stating my political beliefs, of which I really don't have any, I don't think knowledge about how government works should be a qualifier to voting. Being at the mercy of said government should be the qualifier.

Tekwardo said:
I don't think knowledge about how government works should be a qualifier to voting. Being at the mercy of said government should be the qualifier.

Indeed. But I'm even willing to give (for the sake of discussion) that understanding how government works is necessary.

But that still doesn't mean I have to know about or care about every little issue those elected officials will face and/or decide upon. If that were the case, none of us would be allowed to vote.

Hell, the officials themselves can't even do that. :)

I appreciate your sudden concern about "insinuated" insults Tek. ...however misguided your conclusions may be. Rest assured that I trust that any reasonable person who has read this board is quite aware exactly who practices the art of personal insult in lieu of deliberation. I look foward to your continued participation to rid this board of all those who cross the line of acceptability. I'm particularly elated that you have taken this responsibility upon yourself since you've already made it clear that differing opinions have no affect on your commentary.

P.S. Advocating testing to assert the right to vote wreaks of elitism.

I'm sure I'm not the only person insulted at your jabs. You've accused coaster geeks of being for government spending when it's to their benefit while adding another coaster to count, and now you bring up the 'roller coaster club' guy. In fact, I think you've used that one before.

You can say its just me all you want, but you're blind if you think the majority of people on here don't see you for what you really are.

P.S. Advocating testing to assert the right to vote wreaks of elitism.

So sayeth the pot.

Tekwardo said:
I don't understand the principles of how electricity works, should I not be allowed to use it?

Of course you should be allowed to use it. But it wouldn't be prudent for you to advise others how to use it, nor is it prudent for you to tell an electrician how to wire up your house. And voting, in a sense, is advising others on how they should be governed.

I don't understand the principles on how LIMs work, should I not ride launched coasters...

Of course not. But you certainly shouldn't be designing them, or even voting on how they're designed. And voting, in a sense, is designing government.

Being at the mercy of said government should be the qualifier.

I agree with this as well, and I realize that my voting test qualifier is pretty "out there", but I still think it may be a more effective way to govern a group.

I see where you're coming from, I just don't think it's the best practice. Heck, I think people should have to be licensed, take a test, and ask the government's permission to be able to have children or else pay a fine, but I don't think thats the best practice ;).