I'm 18 and definitely feel that I'm more qualified to vote than most people twice my age...
Supreme court strikes down Chicago gun ban, expands gun rights
- Thread starter papajohn56
- Start date
I'm 18 and definitely feel that I'm more qualified to vote than most people twice my age...
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance?
Let them take arms.
The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?"
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance?
Let them take arms.
The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?"
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance?
Let them take arms.
The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?"
Scandal!!!!!! He used incorrect gramma!!!!!!!
I disagree, but this depends on what you mean by a country that is "better off." For me, it means no wars, no entitlements, no funny money, and some other stuff (I don't want to bore you).
Teens don't vote for that stuff. They don't want to kill brown people, apply for Medicare, or turn on the printing press. Old people like me vote for that stuff. Not me, just old like me.
agreed. If anything this country would be better off if the younger generation would fucking get out there and vote. You guys think anyone older than 40 is voting for anything other than the Republicrats out there?
Meh.
How about limiting voting to:
Taxpayers who are able to pass a basics civics test. (aka what are the 3 branches of government.. etc)
Age is too arbitrary. (Plus if limited to age 30 you've excluded the 18 yo who is serving in the military)
While we're at it lets throw in some mandatory military service for everyone 18 years of age for a year.
How about limiting voting to:
Taxpayers who are able to pass a basics civics test. (aka what are the 3 branches of government.. etc)
Age is too arbitrary. (Plus if limited to age 30 you've excluded the 18 yo who is serving in the military)
While we're at it lets throw in some mandatory military service for everyone 18 years of age for a year.
Couldn't be more wrong.
@18 most people think the fed is a gov't entity and have no clue what a fiat currency is.
@18 they'll vote for whoever is going to fund more of their college so they don't have to pay
@18 they'll vote for whoever supports their lifestyle through welfare because they are up shit creek with no education/job and have a baby.
@18 they're more concerned about a social life than defending the liberties of our country. The presidential election is turned into something similar to voting for the prom queen/king in their eyes.
I'm ok with shutting the voting age off after retirement too.
By pulling 30 out of my arse I was more interested in getting the point across that 18 year olds have no business electing officials. Put some standards in place like "tax paying citizens for 5 years", "property owners" or "IQ standards" and the age restriction thing will take care of itself.
_________________
Bottom line to all of this: I'm interested in less government and the only way that's going to happen is if the people voting aren't getting handouts from the people they are voting for.
I think you and I are talking to different 18-year-olds. I'm not saying you're wrong in your description of a teen's mentality. I'm just unwilling to say you're right about all of them. In fact, I was wrong to paint the age group with such a broad stroke. That was really shortsighted of me. The fact is, if I walk through a mall, I'm going to run into guys like cardine and guys that match your description.
And that's going to be true at all ages.
I'll bet you and I come closer on one thing, though: limited government. But democracy and limited government are like oil and vinegar. The latter can never follow the former.
A few quick notes:
To say that a block votes left says very little. They may be doing so to increase their liberty (for example, smoke weed, "letting" homosexuals marry, etc.). They may also be doing so to expand entitlements. They may be doing so to stop foreign aggression. They may be doing so for all of these reasons, and others.
To say the young are ignorant is a flawed position. Some are and some are not. The same is true at any age group until death. If anything, the young lack the cynicism that acts as a safeguard against liars (or politicians, but I repeat myself). But again, this can be said for individuals at all ages.
About the printing press, the right has been just as willing to print funny money as the left. Yes Obama/Bernanke have been busy. So were Reagan/Greenspan.
Do the young like education entitlements? Sure. But it's hard to make the case that they like them more than the old enjoy their entitlements.
The answer isn't to put blame on the young or old. It is to realize that all democracies are bound to fail.
Good win. Pretty sad though when something like this barely passes, when the 2nd amendment is pretty fucking clear IMHO.
Wow this thread is sinking fast
Stereotyping entire age groups...rofl
If that's the case chances are you were probably a Ron Paul supporter (just a guess).
His campaign was pretty much steam-powered by throngs of college kids.
Stereotyping entire age groups...rofl
If that's the case chances are you were probably a Ron Paul supporter (just a guess).
His campaign was pretty much steam-powered by throngs of college kids.
Obviously, there is no ballot item that says:
___ Kill brown people
___ Don't kill brown people
I've read your posts, hellblazer. You know how this works. You know how the war machine ramps up. You know how money gets allocated to fund these moves. It doesn't happen from people voting to "go kill foreigners." It happens when government creates a fear, sells the idea, and slowly gathers enough support to move. Usually, it takes years.
Sarcasm aside, who would you say is promoting our occupation in foreign lands? And why?
Very few young people I know seem to fear the consequences of pulling out of these lands. I can remember very few who wanted to go in the first place. On the other hand, years ago many older people seemed to support our occupation of Iraq, Pakistan, Iran (huh?!), and Afghanistan because "if we don't get the terrorists, they'll get us first."
Given that political strategists know the younger block is much less likely to vote than the older block, who is (or was) pushing this stuff?
Backpedal and justify all you like, your statement was clearly ludicrous, and the fact that it went unchallenged only further exposed(as if it was necessary) the idiotic lunacy and blatant prejudice of the resident Left on here.