-=> Bob Klahn wrote to Dave Drum <=-

 DD> This would offer those with physical impediments - blind,
 DD> deaf, amputee, paraplegic, etc. a chance to serve their
 DD> country and *earn* their right to vote. OTOH, basic

 BK>  Even they can fill some slot in the military.

Why do you have this stick up your butt about military service? If a person
cannot wield a weapon then that person should not be in the military. Period.
In some (civilian, non-combat) support function - thereby freeing up a troop
who *IS* capable of wielding a weapon.
 
 DD> military training should be required of all who are
 DD> physically able ... using the Marine Corps philosophy that
 DD> everyone is a rifleman first and a (whatever) second. Those
 DD> who have gone through the training would then keep their
 DD> basic weapon for the rest of their lives ... ready to
 DD> spring to action at a moment's notice. Latter day Minute
 DD> Men as it were.

 bk>  Even conscientious objectors can serve.

 DD> Yup.

 bk>>  And it should not be a pre-requisite for voting, but simpley
 bk>>  required.

 DD> Nope. There should be some extra (potential) reward for
 DD> putting your arse on the line. Those not serving and just

 BK>  What I said, required, not optional.

I disagree. Those not serving voluntarily are automatically second-class
residents (not citizens). If they do not value the country highly enough to
volunteer their service what sort of citizen/troop/voter would they make?  I
volunteered when I was seventeen. You volunteered. Many were drafted. And many
did not serve at all.
 
 BK>  ...

 DD>> That, coupled with a two term limit for *ALL* elective
 DD>> offices would help ensure that this noble experiment in
 DD>> which we are enmeshed will continue ... at least long

 bk>>  The two term limit sounds good, and I used to favor term limits.
 bk>>  Though I favored a time limit, not a term limit. Twelve years
 bk>>  for congress, six for president and VP.

 bk>>  After I saw the disaster term limits caused in Michigan I got to
 bk>>  doubting the principle. As the Toledo Blade's ombudsman, who is
 bk>>  in Michigan and a prof at a journalism school there, as well as
 bk>>  a long time journalist wrote, when the Michigan budget was
 bk>>  practically impossible to balance there was not one single
 bk>>  member of the legislature who had been there just 6 years before
 bk>>  when a lot of those programs and tax cuts had been voted in.

 DD> So what? If they were responsible and in tune to the needs
 DD> of the job they should have done what was necessary and
 DD> screw the special interests and their lobbyists.

 BK>  If they were. Most of those running for short terms like that
 BK>  are single issue or limited issue politicans. Get what they want
 BK>  and screw the rest.

Aaaaahhhh ... but, that is why we need to change the system. So that no one
gets more than two terms and the single issue doofuses got subsumed in a new
class every election. 
 
 BK>  ...

 DD> I don't like taxes any better than anyone else. But, hell,
 DD> I don't like paying bills either. I do, however recognise
 DD> the needs to do so ... and if it takes a tax increase, then
 DD> gaddmit raise the bleeping taxes.
 DD>> enough for our descendants to pay off the huge bills the
 DD>> Bushies and the Obamites have run up.

 BK>  Go back to Reagan. Remember, half the debt Bush left Obama was
 BK>  built up before he took office.

Don't forget George II. And his promise "Read my lips, No new
taxes!"  Which he
had to give the lie to after increasing the national debt even further than the
massive pile that Ray-Guns left him.
 
 BK>  ...

 bk>>  If we tip over into depression the economy will contract
 bk>>  significantly. A 30% contraction in GDP would mean the debt load
 bk>>  would instantly jump to 128% of GDP. A 50% contraction would
 bk>>  jump the debt to 180% of GDP. I doubt any country has ever
 bk>>  survived a debt load like that.

 bk>>  And we can't even start a war to get us out of it.

Nope, George III already took that option off the table. 
 
 DD> Ain't no easy answers, are there?

 BK>  In right wing fantasy land.

Well, the conservatives on the Supreme Court are the activists. And the
liberals have proved to be the incremental, cautious, restrained justices. Odd,
that.

Ain't no easy *CORRECT* answers, then.  Bv)=

ENJOY!!!

From Uncle Dirty Dave's Kitchen
Home of YAHOOOOAHHHH Hot Sauce & Hardin Cider 

 

... A citizen between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats-Ben Franklin
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32