Marianne has a naked breast because it’s an allegory, you cretin

[Ben Kenobi]

If a noncitizen does it, they could be forced out of the country. It just doesn't happen. Voter fraud only happens in this country when Republicans delete people off voter rolls for no reason.

Who was the last non-citizen deported for voting illegally?

[Giancarlo]

That doesn't change my point is that there is nothing on your driver's licenses that says that the holder is not a citizen.

Federal limits apply. You are an idiot then who cannot read. I can't fix your stupidity. It is up to you to read and look more carefully.

They can and do vote. Millions of people.

Bull****!

You have nothing to back that up with. It just doesn't happen. Millions... Foaming out of your stupid mouth again. Can somebody get this man some rabies medication?

You can say that all you like. Doesn't change the fact that there *is* evidence.

You are a pathetic stupid liar.

[Giancarlo]

Who was the last non-citizen deported for voting illegally?

It doesn't happen, as non citizens don't vote.

Your claim of millions is more unsupported stupid bull**** you can't back up.

Edit: And please don't try to splice language. I am talking about elections here in the US. Not if a noncitizen votes in a election in their home country via mail ballot. Justin Trudeau says hi!

[Ben Kenobi]

It doesn't happen.

Thank you Giancarlo for confirming that there is zero enforcement of the voting laws in the United States.

[Giancarlo]

Thank you Giancarlo for confirming that there is zero enforcement of the voting laws in the United States.

You can't even ****ing read. I said millions of people don't fraudulently vote in the US election. Are this much of a dimwit in real life?

You have destroyed yet another thread with your histrionics. Good job, Ben!

[Giancarlo]

I edited that post incorrectly and deleted part my reply. People have been deported for breaking federal law. Illicit voting would qualify. But noncitizens don't vote... So it doesn't happen.

Can somebody explain it to this dumbass who thinks millions of undocumented people vote on US elections?

[pchang]

Is BK going on about massive levels of voter fraud in the US again?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/up...read.html?_r=0
I'm surprised there isn't a tin foil shortage in Texas.

[Giancarlo]

Is BK going on about massive levels of voter fraud in the US again?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/up...read.html?_r=0
I'm surprised there isn't a tin foil shortage in Texas.

I'll lower myself to BK's level...

But... Obama had millions of dead people voting and Kenyans voted to... in the US election. (lmao)

He's also a gay muslim terrorist Kenyan from Somalia!

LMAO

[Ben Kenobi]

People have been deported for breaking federal law

Have they been deported for voting illegally?

[BeBMan]

We interrupt this showing of "Geez BK is a ****ty person, part XLVIII" for an actually novel discussion.

Leave a thread alone for 24hrs and you see pages of BK vs. someone.....

I would say that the Twentieth in general did severe damage to a previously rosy view of human nature and the future. The medieval view of humanity was, as a general rule, rather grim, and in some cases the early modern one (Calvin, Hobbes--and I don't mean comics) could be even worse. The Enlightenment, and its successors, were rooted in the idea that, far from total and unfixable depravity, we were really pretty okay, and if things weren't great now we could keep incrementally making them better. But then we had WWI, with lots of fantastically horrible new ways to kill people in larger numbers than ever before--tens of thousands dead in single inconclusive battles. Then the WWII era, which added to the general slaughter a whole new kind of brutal and barbaric government, worse than anything the premodern world had to offer. Then we spent fifty years in a delicate diplomatic tapdance trying to keep from destroying civilization. Along the way we grew environmentally conscious. Etc. It's been very disillusioning, in spite of all the very real benefits bestowed by technology.

Now, with the end of the Cold War and the Pax Americana since, it has become somewhat easier to be optimistic again, and you see this in the Stephen Pinker types. But it's also been the era of terrorism, resurgent despotism, and climate change. In the long term, I think we're going to have to face up to the shortcomings of the Enlightenment: the modern world is one in which large-scale power (governments, and to some extent large corporations) has eclipsed small-scale bonds of family and community. And individual freedom cannot grow indefinitely without offloading the costs of bad choices onto others.

I certainly agree that the era of blind belief in tech/science progress making the future always/automatically *good* is over for many reasons, not just the WWs, also stuff like environmental issues, the oil shock, tech disasters like Chernobyl etc and probably a whole lot of other stuff that escapes me right now. And indeed in dictatorships it all can be turned into means to put ppl down.

It's just when we trace positive devs back to the enlightenment there don't seem to be much alternatives around. On the practical science/tech side, most ppl would not want to get rid of the improvements provided by it - from meds to energy supply to means of communications or transport to whatever...even the *green" aspect is now dominated largely by the search for smarter solutions relying on science/tech, only small parts buy into a "go back to pre-industrial lifestyle" view.

Similar on the political/society/freedom side - enlightenment philo stuff and the principles dev'd from there are to a good degree essential for something like an open, free society, so we can't go back behind them without giving up on the "open, free" part...how it turns out in practice remains to be seen....

(What I find disillusioning tho is that many ppl would be prepared to actually surrender those principles, like when they don't like clothes other ppl wear )

[Elok]

I don't believe we need to go back to pre-Enlightenment models of government or anything like that. I do believe that it wasn't perfect, that it did leave us with problems, and we are going to have to face up to them. Enlightenment concepts of human freedom have been taken to the extreme (exemplified, for example, by certain aspects of modern libertarianism) of promoting radically selfish behavior and ignoring the way the penalties of those behaviors get offloaded onto others. To put it another way, we have promoted rights while ignoring responsibilities. And there's a thin line between individualism and atomization. See post 120.

The most recent extremes of the Sexual Revolution are an example of both tendencies; the majority of new mothers in the US are now unmarried. We've gone beyond breaking up existing families, and are now failing to form new ones. The consequences of such a change should be readily foreseeable--indeed, they're well-established by research. Really, they're quite horrifying. No, we do not need to go back to barefoot-and-preggers-in-the-kitchen, but more freedom is not the answer to everything. You need water to live, but that doesn't mean it can't kill you.

I also think the scientific discoveries of the Enlightenment era can and should be considered distinct from the social changes. To some extent, the two were intertwined, but science has advanced plenty under less-than-free regimes. The Abbasid caliphate comes to mind. Even ancient Greece and Rome were far from Enlightenment-type civs.

[Ben Kenobi]

The most recent extremes of the Sexual Revolution are an example of both tendencies; the majority of new mothers in the US are now unmarried. We've gone beyond breaking up existing families, and are now failing to form new ones. The consequences of such a change should be readily foreseeable--indeed, they're well-established by research. Really, they're quite horrifying. No, we do not need to go back to barefoot-and-preggers-in-the-kitchen, but more freedom is not the answer to everything. You need water to live, but that doesn't mean it can't kill you.

Well, or in short, more freedom results in less freedom, because unless freedom is restrained, it becomes difficult to exercise freedom. Great post.

[Giancarlo]

Have they been deported for voting illegally?

Your claim of millions of noncitizens voting in US elections is a total lie.

In fact noncitizens don't vote in US elections, so how would anyone get deported for that reason?

[Giancarlo]

Well, or in short, more freedom results in less freedom, because unless freedom is restrained, it becomes difficult to exercise freedom. Great post.

It's a completely false argument based on a poorly worked premise. Restricting rights does nothing to promote responsibility.

It essentially is an outmoded hysteria that seeks to promote fear. A type of argument used against LGBT people. Somehow by giving us equal rights it threatens freedom.

Totally false!

[Aeson]

Taking away people's freedom is a bad idea, and such action should be reserved for those taking away the freedoms of those around them. It's especially a bad idea because the ones who will be responsible for deciding which freedoms to take away would be politicians.

Promoting healthy choices through education programs is a much better way to correct destructive behavior. Look at anti-smoking campaigns in the US for a good example of how this can be done.