Well, at my intellectual pay grade we learned that "one man, one vote" was a cornerstone of the United States. That our founding fathers valued the opinion of a man who toiled in a field as much as the opinion of the man who owns the field.
Now, see, if I was being a partisan idiot, I would accuse you of wanting to take the vote away from women. That's an example of taking words too literally... and hence, the importance of 'context'.
I totally agree that the man (or woman) who toiled in a field is as valid a voter as the owner of the field. What I would like is for both to inform themselves (and that is an important point - that they are responsible for ensuring that they access legitimate, valid, accurate information) before they participate in the process. Otherwise, we may end up with something we didn't realize we were voting for. You do see that, right? I find it extraordinary that anyone would support people not informing themselves before they vote. I can think of no legitimate reason why anyone would support that.
I agree, but we shouldn't force anyone. It is someone's right to be uninformed.
Prime example, this lady I work with. You can not agree with Obama care, and lets be honest there is enough in the bill for right wingers to be mad about.. This woman probably listens to her idiot husband, who then repeats crap that she thinks is in the bill.
Don't like the bill, that is fine, but don't make up stuff.
I don't agree with you, but at least if you are arguing against the bill at least I know you probably know what is actually in it.... not some made up crap your husband told you.
I should add I have pissed a few of my liberal friends off, by telling them they have no clue about certain right wing policies. LOL One friend even told me I wasn't a liberal anymore.
