Hello Ham, you had said:
I would like to see the voting privilege limited to educated English-speaking people of eligible age with at least one year of U.S. citizenship, who know our national history, who are not criminals or mentally incapacitated, and who can show evidence of monetary credit. Otherwise, we'll continue to have nonsensical voting recounts and an increasing number of immigrants who just got off the boat (may not even be citizens), have no means of support, no understanding of what being an American means, and are casting their vote for a handout. Does that make sense? Ron: Here are the official qualifications to become a U.S. citizen found @ http://phoenix.about.com/cs/govt/ht/citizenship.htm 1. You are over 18 years old. 2. You have been a permanent resident of the U.S., with a Resident Card, for 5 years continuously without leaving for long periods of time. 3. You can read, write, and speak basic English. (Age or disability may allow exemption of this requirement.) 4. You must pass a civics exam. 5. You must be able to swear to be of good moral character. 6. If male, you must have complied with the Selective Service requirements. 7. If male, you have never deserted the armed forces. 8. If male, you have never been discharged from armed services for being an alien. 9. If male, be willing to serve in the armed forces, if eligible and required. 10. You must certify that you will uphold the Constitution of the U.S. 11. You must take an oath of allegiance to the U.S. 12. If married, you have been married to a U.S. citizen for at least 3 years, and the spouse has been a citizen for more than 3 years. Ron: where do you find YOUR information? Ham continues: Wiki's endorsement of egalitarianism as "a core component of modern civil rights policies" is a sorry example of what has gone wrong with America. Every sex, every lobbyist group, every ethnic minority demands the "right" to some special favor just because he/she makes a home here. Ron: Like the right to equal opportunity under the law? or the right to fair and equal treatment under the law regardless of race, sex, or monitary status? why is it an unreasonable demand to be treated as equals to white males under the law? Ham: Legislating a civil right for one group takes advantage over all others and makes a mockery of the "egalitarianism" you eulogize; yet, the people who petition for a civil right are the folks advocating equality for all! Ron: THAT IS the idea, why should only white males of wealth be the only group to enjoy liberty and equality? In that capacity the terms equality and liberty are a sham. Thats the arguement. Which has been won, fairly in a court of law, therefore it was earned. Ham: If you're born on American soil, you're automatically granted the right to U.S. citizenship. All other "rights" should be earned, or at least justified by reason. The rights that I've seen demanded in my seven decades on this planet have demonstrated neither qualification, but a only growing dissatisfaction with life in America. My response to these activists is: "Find a country where you can have more liberty than you have here, and move there!" Ron: They only ask for equal treatment under the law, nothing more. Unless you can produce some examples of asking for privilaged treatment. Ham: > Why do you find this a "conflict of interest"? Ron: > Because you seem to cite individualism as the very cause > of multiculuralisms failure. Ham: An individualist will invariably meet resistance in a collective society. Modern civilization is a testament to the fact that people of disparate values and beliefs can overcome their differences sufficiently to live in peace and harmony. Ron: Egalitarianism, multiculturalism. Ham: The alternative is turning out human beings in the same mold, with no differences, no original ideas, no unique aptitudes or personalities, no powers of discrimination. That's the dull, gray world of egalitarianism where nothing and no one is better or worse than anything or anyone else. Go find it, if you can. I choose to stay here where I can value Difference. Ron: The alternatives are holy wars, bigotry, oppression and slavery. I guess elimenating these types of things would make life rather dull. The differences you seem to value are those of racial, ethnic, monitary and sexual superiority. Can't bring the 50's back Ham. To play the other side of the coin (as I'm want to do) I dislike those far left extremist morons also, the ones who do want special treatment and are emotional, violent and unreasonable. But those people arent preaching egalitarianism they advocate an idealist irrational point of view against an oppresive system that does not exist anymore. They want to level the playing field to account for their own short comings because they are unwilling to place the effort into actually developing themselves, they want to blame society. Thats not egalitariansim that the shirking of personal responsibility. The media has fed into this developing of a culture of victims. I think any reasonable person would put away the straw dogs and knee jerk reactions the media has conditioned us to respond to and look at the situation with open original dialog with an eye toward intellectually assessing the situation and offering some viable solutions. This is what I would expect from the caliber of individuals we are graced with here on this forum. anything less is just feeding into the "scam". Thanks Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
