Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Neal Boortz: SORRY ... BUT IT'S HARD TO DEAL WITH THE UNEDUCATED SOMETIMES.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

    SORRY ... BUT IT'S HARD TO DEAL WITH THE UNEDUCATED SOMETIMES.

    Now I know that with our system of government schools there is every excuse for people to be badly misinformed on critical issues. Let's face it ... these government schools have been more interested in feeding you dogma than the truth. Let's take the idea that our country is a democracy, for instance. I would guess that virtually every government school in this nation teaches its hostages (students) that the United States is a democracy. Now don't you find this just a bid odd, considering the fact that neither the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any of the 50 state even contain the word "democracy?" Isn't it odder still that the Constitution specifically says that our form of government is "Republican?"

    Yes .. there's a reason for this. Around the time of Woodrow Wilson the idea of government welfare programs that were outside of the grant of authority in our Constitution began to take hold. Politicians knew that if they continued to tout the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, they would have a rather difficult time getting their government welfare programs enacted. So, the idea started to spread that we were a democracy .. a country ruled by men and not the law. Whatever the majority of the people (voters) wanted .. they got. After all, isn't that what democracy (majority rule) means?

    You might find it interesting to know what our founding fathers thought of the idea of a democracy. There's an incredible book out there titled "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. Here's your link if you might like to get a copy. The author, historian Joseph Ellis, tells us at the very beginning of this book just what our founding fathers thought of the idea of democracy. Here's what they thought of democrats:

    "...the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"


    I know ... it truly is amazing how that phrase pretty much describes the Democrats of the day. For the most part the oratory of both Obama and Hillary have been little more than examples of pandering "to the crude and mindless whims of the masses."
    So .. why have our government schools been so anxious to spread the "democracy" lie? Because the more people believe that crap the stronger government becomes. If the dumb masses can be convinced that, since we are a democracy, the government should be able to do whatever the political class convinces the majority of Americans it should do ... then we have stronger politicians and weaker protections for our rights.

    OK .. enough about the democracy thing. Let's move to another area of widespread ignorance among the American people. Again ... you came by it honestly. Government schools. I speaking here of the almost universal belief that you have a constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Hint .. .you do not.

    I talked about this right to vote thing on the show a few days ago, and Web Guy (the poor SOB) tells me that we have been receiving a string of rather unfriendly emails from people calling me a moron, an idiot and other similar names for my statement on the right to vote. Some of these emailers cite various Constitutional provisions in an attempt to prove their brilliance and my abject ignorance.

    Look .. I don't really mind the fact that many of you have been indoctrinated into this "right to vote" bit by our government schools. You were had. You were intentionally misinformed. You should not feel ashamed that you were fooled this way. After all, every where you go you hear about this right to vote BS ... so it's no wonder you've bought it. The shame is in sticking to your erroneous beliefs when the facts are presented to you.

    Facts, you say? Yeah ... here are a couple of points for you to consider:
    Let's make our first stop at Wikipedia. We'll make two stops. First, the entry for "Voting rights in the United States." There you will find the following sentence:
    There is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, but only that they cannot be denied based solely on the aforementioned qualifications, however, the "right to vote" may be denied for any other reason (i.e. being convicted of a felony).
    Next stop .. .the Wikipedia entry for "Sufferage." A subsection of this entry covers the history of suffrage (the vote) in the United States. Here you go:
    In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally. There is no national "right to vote". The states and the people have changed the U.S. Constitution five times to disallow states from limiting suffrage, thereby expanding it.
    • 15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
    • 19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
    • 23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President
    • 24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of tax
    • 26th Amendment (1971): no law may restrict those 18 years of age or older from voting because of their age
    Moving right along now, here's an article written by Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. entitled "The Right to Vote." Jackson writes: "And yet the right to vote is not a fundamental right in our Constitution." I guess that you folks who have been sending in those emails are right, and the Congressman is wrong ... right? Jackson has introduced a voting rights amendment in the congress. Now just why would he need to do that if the right already existed?

    I'm not through with you yet. Let's go to Michael C. Dorf. Dorf is the Vice Dean and professor of law at Columbia University. Dorf wrote this article entitled "We Need A Constitutional Right to Vote in Presidential Elections." Tell me, would a law professor write a column calling for a constitutional right to vote if we already had one?

    Final stop ... the complete text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al. Take a look at Section II, Paragraph B. The very first sentence there reads: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art.II, §1."

    Enough? I would certainly hope so. So you clowns out there keep sending all of those emails telling me what an idiot I am for saying that there is no constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Read the sources I've presented to you above ... and send me another email.

    Some would say that intelligence can be measured by your ability to recognize that you're wrong on an issue. Many times in my 38-year talk radio career I've had to admit that I got something wrong. I hope I never grow too old to learn. Some of you are already there.

    By the way ... why is this issue so important to me? Well .... Look what these damned voters are doing to the greatest experiment in governance in the history of the world! Once we have accepted the truth – that they don't have a constitution right to vote – then we can set about the task of getting some of these dumb masses out of our voting booths. Think about it ... we offer parasites the opportunity to register to vote when they sign up for welfare! What the hell kind of sense does that make?
    The hell with the idea of pandering to the poor, poor pitiful poor. We didn't put them there. They did it to themselves .. .and I damned sure don't want them making decisions that can affect the way I live my life .. and how much of the money that I earn I can keep. If we must, we'll take care of them and make sure they don't starve, get basic medical care, and have a place to go when it rains or gets cold. Fine. That's nothing we wouldn't do for stray animals .. .but they sure don't need to be voting.

    Oh ... and you people at Media Morons can kiss ole' Rusty.

    I wonder what on OCDO is considered the outward evidence of the crude and uneducated?

    Democracy is the rule of fools by fools. Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA morons can kiss ol' Rusty.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    I had to chip in on this one. You must remember that the men from whom that sentiment came also thought only white male landowners should have the right to vote, and that a slave counted as3/5 of a person for population reasons.

    If you're saying some things don't change while some things do, you're right; even though voting rights have been extended topractically allcitizens (felons and insane persons are the exception), the vast majority of people in the U.S. still really don't have a clue about how to solve the issues facing this country in any other way than that which personally benefits them the most. However, to say that the definition of "democrat" is "mindless rubber stamp" is not only insulting and misplaced, it's flat-out wrong. Both parties have been "mindless rubber stamps" in recent years; the question is, do you want a Congress that's a mindless rubber stamp for the people, or for a President?

    The definition you provide was in fact the root of the concept of "majority rule, minority rights". If you pander mindlessly to the whim of the majority as both Republicans AND Democrats have done in recent times, then you inevitably stomp on the rights of the minority. Therefore you can'tobey the will of the majority blindly; government must consider whether the majority's will results in infringement on minority rights, and if so, is there an overpowering need to do so? The answer to that second question is rarely "yes".

    However, a "republic" in which the governing body heeds only the will of the leader is no republic, it's a dictatorship. Such totalitarian rule is the antithesis of the whole system. The Founders never envisaged agovernment in which the President had the power to drag the country kicking and screaming through his term because he thought it was in our best interest to do it his way. You wanna talk about a "nanny state", that's the ultimate example, and there have been plenty of examplesunderour current Republicanadministration.

    So, what's necessary is a BALANCE. It takes all kinds; you have to have people representing ALL interested parties to an issue in order to get a solution that works for as many people as possible. One person saying "it's best to do it this way" will result in a solution that's only good for that one person and anyone exactly like him. What works best for 51% may crush the other 49%. When is a minority insignificant? the correct answer is never, but if3 out of 4of your population want you as a leader to do it their way, You better have a REALLY good reason to deny the will of the 3 in favor ofthe 4th guy.
    By the way ... why is this issue so important to me? Well .... Look what these damned voters are doing to the greatest experiment in governance in the history of the world! Once we have accepted the truth – that they don't have a constitution right to vote – then we can set about the task of getting some of these dumb masses out of our voting booths. Think about it ... we offer parasites the opportunity to register to vote when they sign up for welfare! What the hell kind of sense does that make?
    The hell with the idea of pandering to the poor, poor pitiful poor. We didn't put them there. They did it to themselves .. .and I damned sure don't want them making decisions that can affect the way I live my life .. and how much of the money that I earn I can keep. If we must, we'll take care of them and make sure they don't starve, get basic medical care, and have a place to go when it rains or gets cold. Fine. That's nothing we wouldn't do for stray animals .. .but they sure don't need to be voting.
    Wow, OK, now I know you're joking. Most of ths is, whether you realize it or not, not only flat wrong,but racist. You do of course realize that 2/3 of our population is living paycheck-to-paycheck in a time when our biggest export isskilled jobs. In addition, $60k a year puts you in the top 1% of wage-earners, butfew if any families of four canlive comfortablyon a single paycheck under $80k a year. Rent and food for two adults and two teenagers is easily $1200-1400 and that's in a cheap apartment. That's half of a $60-grander's monthly income and you haven't even started considering utilities (a three-bedroom apartment easily tops $150/month just for the electric bill, and heaven help you if you have a gas water heater or HVAC unit), transportation (I currently pay $600/month on just the car loan and insurance), clothing, school supplies, etc. And you wanna take a vacation?

    You say youwant to disqualify those who make less than what's necessary to qualiy for welfare. I smell poll tax. Whether there actually is a poll tax involved or not, a minimum income, ANY minimum income,discriminates. More than that, discrimination based on income draws a racial line as well. The service industry, Section8 apartment renters, and other participants in government programs that would likely not meet your minimum qualifications are minorities.

    So you have people who lost their jobs to the global market and minorities, and you try to say "they did it to themselves". Absolutely disgusting.



  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    I had to chip in on this one. You must remember that the men from whom that sentiment came also thought only white male landowners should have the right to vote, and that a slave counted as 7/10 of a person for population reasons.
    COTUS I 2:3a? "...bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons."

    It has been our practice, occasionally abused, to demand citations of provenance of not commonly known 'facts'.

    ETA much later; Do you respond to 'have you yet stopped beating your wife?' That "7/10" is a false premise and makes the whole loong rest of the argument (syllogism) moot because its truth value depends on the validity of every premise. Write small, miss small.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    $
    Posts
    187

    Post imported post

    I agree.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    I had to chip in on this one. You must remember that the men from whom that sentiment came also thought only white male landowners should have the right to vote, and that a slave counted as 7/10 of a person for population reasons.
    COTUS I 2:3a? "...bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons."

    It has been our practice, occasionally abused, to demand citations of provenance of not commonly known 'facts'.

    ETA much later; Do you respond to 'have you yet stopped beating your wife?' That "7/10" is a false premise and makes the whole loong rest of the argument (syllogism) moot because its truth value depends on the validity of every premise. Write small, miss small.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******
    Fine. Edit to read 3/5. Now deal with the argument. And if you wanna talk about a LOOOOOONG argument, look at your own post.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    So much for attribution. WTF bother whan conversing with the invincibly ignorant. ****

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* Anony Mouse can kiss ol' Rusty.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    RE: The posted article, the bit on democracy was very good. As for the bit on the right to vote, what bothered me is the lack of primary evidence to support the idea. The quote from George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al seems to be the only legitimate piece of evidence, though the other pieces definately point to areas in which to further investigate. Or maybe I just have a bias against using Wikipedia and politicians' opinions as arguments to support a fact. Nonetheless, I get the idea.

    The point I would raise, though, in regard to "right to vote", is that if our government were to restrict itself to the Constitution and not gratuitously usurp powers, voting for our leaders would not be very important, as each one would serve our country in a similar manner as another. Unfortunately, as the government (especially the National government) has been so perverted from its constitutionally intended form, in modern America which leader is elected dictates who is allowed to control almost every aspect of our lives. It introduces a complication where the "right to vote" must then be re-evaluated.

    To expand on that a bit more... In the upcoming presidential election, the candidate who is elected will determine in what direction the country will go for the following 4 years in regard to which rights of the people are ignored and which upheld, how long Americans will have to act as slave to the government through income taxes, and then to which special interest groups that tax money will be given. Now, in the early days of our country, the president would decide... what to have for dinner? What clothes he should wear? Granted, he had some powers, but they were limited. In those days, the ruler of the country was the Constitution, not the elected officials who abided by that document.

    To deal with that change, one of two things must happen. Either we must give all people a right (and perhaps requirement) to vote on how their lives will be run for the following several years, or we must go back to a constitutional form of government and stick to the originally intended limitations on voting. Taking a "hybrid" approach may seem convenient for "moderates", but will just breed the same problems and discontent we have with the current system.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Now, in the early days of our country, the president would decide... what to have for dinner? What clothes he should wear? Granted, he had some powers, but they were limited. In those days, the ruler of the country was the Constitution, not the elected officials who abided by that document.
    Very true.

    The professional politicians of our day are an embarassment to the constitution and to our country and theyleave a stain on the founding documents we were so blessed with by the statesman that risked-all for our independence.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Now, in the early days of our country, the president would decide... what to have for dinner? What clothes he should wear? Granted, he had some powers, but they were limited. In those days, the ruler of the country was the Constitution, not the elected officials who abided by that document.
    Very true.

    The professional politicians of our day are an embarassment to the constitution and to our country and theyleave a stain on the founding documents we were so blessed with by the statesman that risked-all for our independence.
    Brings a new definition to "public servant". An elected leader is not supposed to lead so much as administrate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •