Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Pan you don't understand the crux of it.
The poor are just that poor. They are uneducated. They have no resources. They are often in ill health due to lifestyle. They have nothing to unify them outside of being poor.
The poor don't win revolutions. They may get slaughtered in them, but they don't win. So I don't worry about them, they are ineffectual. If they had the ability to revolt they wouldn't be poor in the first place, being poor in the US is almost impossible if you have even a sliver of work ethic and self control.
And likewise we are talking about some pretty basic functions. I'm more for a civics type of test over a literacy, but regardless we are not asking for a lot. It is you who assume all the poor people are illiterate and do not grasp what they are voting for, but you also assume they will revolt for what they don't understand and can't read. At best they are used by others, with empty promises that things will be different when THEY are in charge.
|
Pompousity in it's purest form, gotta love it.
Tell the poor they had no chance in Russia, in France, in any number of countries.
The poor always find someone rich that will back them in revolutions, if only for that person's self gain, as you state. The US is very close to it and if the right person were to come along and people felt no hope (and the hope is dwindling), I firmly believe there would be revolution.
Will the right person come along? Possible, probable, but I think there is still hope and light....
Once you implement these b.s. literacy tests, no matter how "civic" in nature, you start a slippery slope.
I just don't see how people who say they want less government and less spending continue to want such extreme government control in our lives.