# Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 1, 2015)

VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?



That's one of the stupidest - maybe THE stupidest - questions I have seen asked on this board to date, and I have neither time or motivation to give you remedial history and civics lessons.


----------



## 007 (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?
> ...


He gets paid to post that moronic progtard garbage here.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?
> ...



You failed to answer a basic question

Why should knowledge of facts that have nothing to do with your voting decision have anything to do with your ability to vote?

Hint.......this was resolved 50 years ago


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> You failed to answer a basic question



You lack the elementary background, and I charge for lessons.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You failed to answer a basic question
> ...



Why can't you answer a simple question?

Why should not knowing about freedom of religion prevent you from voting for a candidate who will help your community the most?

It's your thread....why are you running away so soon?


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV



Great point.

The first question should be "Was Obama born in Kenya?"

And if one says "Yes," not only should not be able to vote, they should have to enroll in school and pass all 12 grades, no matter what their age.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV



^ This

Voting is a responsibility, it shouldn't be handed out to everybody.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV
> ...



Wrong....conservatives should be allowed to vote regardless of their lack of knowledge


----------



## Roadrunner (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?
> ...


Aw, it's just RW and his agit-prop.

Pay him no mind.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



At bare minimum, you should know how many states are in the USA, rounded to the nearest ten


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

This is a double edged sword in our society today.

We all want the right to vote, I don't want to take anyone's vote from them any more than I would want someone to take my vote from me.

I would hope the person voting was basing the vote on informed judgement, not some party line or hate / cultural perceptions.

Unfortunately in our society any test will be deemed as racism by some class or group of the populace.

Therefore the only way to keep all happy would be to let all vote.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?
> ...



Given that conservatives are wrong on almost every issue, why should they be allowed to vote?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...






rightwinger said:


> Wrong....conservatives should be allowed to vote regardless of their lack of knowledge



Why not?

Democrats have been doing it for decades


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 1, 2015)

Here's a test question to see if you should vote: Are you a financial support or drain on America?

I posted a thread on this in May - Voting Privileges System Needed US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The thesis is that only those who financially support our country (in any give year) should be permitted to vote. This doesn't require any specific knowledge of American history or current events, but if you are making money and paying your taxes it means that you must know something.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> Here's a test question to see if you should vote: Are you a financial support or drain on America?
> 
> I posted a thread on this in May - Voting Privileges System Needed US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The thesis is that only those who financially support our country (in any give year) should be permitted to vote. This doesn't require any specific knowledge of American history or current events, but if you are making money and paying your taxes it means that you must know something.




I could get behind this ..............

Let's extend this one step farther, only those who work legally for the full 4 yr period get to vote in presidential elections.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?


 Well we all know who represents your interest and point of view RW

Bozo Show 1987:


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a test question to see if you should vote: Are you a financial support or drain on America?
> ...




and retirees? 

Are they allowed to vote?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

WillHaftawaite said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Conservatives have demonstrated positions that are harmful to society. Why should they be allowed to vote?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 1, 2015)

RWnuts will never stop trying to concoct a voting system for this country that they think will allow the conservative minority to become an artificial majority.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

WillHaftawaite said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...




Sure, there would be qualifiers such as "physically fit", handicapped, age brackets, use some common sense .....................

I know you would like to paint this off as some compassion less act and me a bad guy for even agreeing with it.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?
> ...



Clowns should not be allowed to vote.......that rules out all republicans


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 1, 2015)

Let's not beat around the proverbial bush here.

This is what conservatives want:

Voting rights and the Supreme Court The impossible literacy test Louisiana used to give black voters.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




and democrats from running for office.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

How bout we do this with retirees, we take their age at retirement, subtract 16 yrs for youth and look for a majority work record of remaining workable years.

Those that have contributed to society on the majority side carry voting rights into retirement ??


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?
> ...



No, it's actually a rather intelligent question. Your answer however, does fit in the answers that are "maybe THE stupidest" category.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Let's not beat around the proverbial bush here.
> 
> This is what conservatives want:
> 
> Voting rights and the Supreme Court The impossible literacy test Louisiana used to give black voters.


 No we have morals at least most of us do, no we don't.


----------



## Camp (Aug 1, 2015)

People still debate the meanings of amendments, including the first one. So who decides what the right answer is? Would a person just be required to quote the amendment or would they have to explain it's meaning. Back to the beginning, who decides which answers are correct or wrong?
If a person is a coal miner and all they know for sure is that they want to vote for candidates who are going to support the coal industry, do they loose their votes because they can't pass your test?
If an old woman who lost her only child in a war defending your right to vote is not able to answer your questions to your satisfaction, does she loose her vote?
If some old person who served in a long ago war has forgotten some things and can not answer your questions to your satisfaction, do they loose the right to vote? How about if they show up at the voting booth with a chest full of medals, including a big purple one shaped like a heart, would that make a difference or would they still not be allowed to vote?


----------



## mdk (Aug 1, 2015)

Yeah, we're not going to do any of this test nonsense.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2015)

I remember leaving a voting booth around 1995 and running into my mom, I will never forget what she asked me "You know who to vote for right?"

I told her what the fuck are you talking about? 

I voted for bugs bunny, hoped in my 95 stang and went back to work.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

Here's a simple solution. 

EDUCATE PEOPLE. I know, I know, it's not the sort of policy that the politicians like. Educated people, people who can think for themselves, are people who are less likely to be taken in by the political bull sheet that goes on, ie, advertising to death with billions of dollars (7 billion last Presidential election), and therefore less likely to vote for the people who control the system (which demands useless education for many of the people). 

But, you know, it's worth telling the politicians you want them to deal with education.

I mean, when you have things like the presidents wife saying kids should only eat one sachet of ketchup with their school meal and millions of people getting all worked up about the president telling people what to do, you know that there's a MASSIVE problem with education.

I mean (part 2), when you look on message boards like this and you see the carp that goes on (great fish, as long as you don't eat it), the complete lack of intelligence and the massive amounts of energy that go into reducing everything to the simplest, easiest way of understand and the most likely to solve absolutely anything, you know that there's a MASSIVE problem with education.


----------



## Camp (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?
> ...


The question is a good one. Not stupid at all. What is stupid is the thread you started and the suggestion that people should have to pass a test to vote. People have fought and died for hundreds of years so that we could all vote it we wanted to. Who the fuck are you to come along and suggest we neutralize what all those Americans fought and died for?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Here's a simple solution.
> 
> EDUCATE PEOPLE. I know, I know, it's not the sort of policy that the politicians like. Educated people, people who can think for themselves, are people who are less likely to be taken in by the political bull sheet that goes on, ie, advertising to death with billions of dollars (7 billion last Presidential election), and therefore less likely to vote for the people who control the system (which demands useless education for many of the people).
> 
> ...




Great idea, I can get right to teaching those pigs to sing, I got plenty of time to waste and I love to annoy the pigs .....................

Kids don't want to learn, I heard a TV interview about labor skills and school.

The comment that stuck in my mind was that kids today wanted to sleep in school but expected to get out and make big money in the work force.

They get out dumb as bags of rocks and soon find out they are worthless ...............


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

A person who lives under a bridge has as much a right to vote as a CEO

That is how our country was founded


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a simple solution.
> ...



What? Is there a point to your rant? Or just evidence that the education system doesn't work by writing nonsense?


----------



## my2¢ (Aug 1, 2015)

My alternative to the voting test is quite simple - remove political party designations from ballots.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV



I must be running slow this morning because it took me more than 10 seconds to pick up on this...

The OP cites lack of knowledge of the Constitution as the reason he wants to impose an unconstitutional testing requirement for voting.

lol.  RW'ers always come through.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV
> ...



Yes...the irony is strong


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 1, 2015)

Toro said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV
> ...



If they answer anything but "no", you mean. If they say "I don't know" or "perhaps" or "we will never know".....same deal. Too stupid.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 1, 2015)

bear513 said:


> I remember leaving a voting booth around 1995 and running into my mom, I will never forget what she asked me "You know who to vote for right?"
> 
> I told her what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> I voted for bugs bunny, hoped in my 95 stang and went back to work.



Damn....you lie with such ease......about meaningless shit.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Right on que, a product of that current education system and the appalling lack of comprehension skills ..................


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I remember leaving a voting booth around 1995 and running into my mom, I will never forget what she asked me "You know who to vote for right?"
> ...


 this comes from a poster with a clown picture?

My blue pit biscuit would eat you alive if I told him to do it.....

The difference between you and me....

I am real and don't hide who I am.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 1, 2015)

bear513 said:


> I remember leaving a voting booth around 1995 and running into my mom, I will never forget what she asked me "You know who to vote for right?"
> 
> I told her what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> I voted for bugs bunny, hoped in my 95 stang and went back to work.



After voting multiple times (as all us democrats do) I hope in my chevy.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a simple solution.
> ...



Dumb as a bag of rocks is believing whatever you hear on t.v.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

jasonnfree said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Only if you use those left propaganda machines like MSNBC & the Communist News Network ....................


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 1, 2015)

bear513 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



You are a habitual liar. And.....I'm not impressed when you tell me that your fucking dog would eat me alive. Not at all.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



Well, we've established that you do use the t.v. for your sources and obviously believe whatever you hear.  So,  which network did you listen to that's not corporate owned?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


 so this tells me one thing 
You are a loser?

And if I lie so bad shouldn't I be a millionaire by now telling fiction story's?

Sorry pal what I post about my life is real, if I like it or not.....


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



Physically fit in order to vote, a novel idea.  How many push ups for example?  10?  15?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 1, 2015)

Yo Bear....

I've got a few minutes. Let's find out how real you are. 

Your avatar.....I assume that is you and your killer dog in your living room. 

You've told us that you make something like 70K per year. Why do you live in a shithole like that, then? 

And...I understand why you'd need the dog. You are awful petite.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

jasonnfree said:


> Physically fit in order to vote, a novel idea.  How many push ups for example?  10?  15?



Unfortunately those without brains would not consult a medical professional that is legitimate and adheres to legal standards clearly set and defined.

You have a good act of mental retardation, but I am sure a good doctor would bust that out quick.

Weak mind, strong back, works fine, all you need to do is become a productive member of society.

Then I would not mind if you voted ..................


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 1, 2015)

bear513 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Is


bear513 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



It's fiction stories, not story's.  Maybe there should be a spelling test for voter eligibility.   This may really hinder republicans getting elected.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

jasonnfree said:


> [
> 
> Well, we've established that you do use the t.v. for your sources and obviously believe whatever you hear.  So,  which network did you listen to that's not corporate owned?



When they hold the #1 slot in all time slots for all news networks what difference does it make if the network is corporately owned.

Say, since you brought it up name a channel that is not corporately owned.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV




JIM CROW LIVES, JIM CROW LIVES!!!


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Physically fit in order to vote, a novel idea.  How many push ups for example?  10?  15?
> ...



Actually, those without brains wouldn't be able to consult anybody.  They'd be dead.  Keep posting though.  It gives me an insight into the right wing mentality.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What's this, a cut and paste marathon?  We've already established that you depend on the news media for your world view.   You don't have to keep proving what a shallow individual you are.  I'm convinced.  I really have to go, now.  I have a real life, and I just check in here at the loony bin now and  then for laughs.


----------



## percysunshine (Aug 1, 2015)

.
Smart educated  liberal academics from Harvard and Yale have done more damage to this nation than any 'Joe the Plumber' could even conceive of.


We would be better off if only stupid people were allowed to run for office or vote.

.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 1, 2015)

percysunshine said:


> .
> Smart educated  liberal academics from Harvard and Yale have done more damage to this nation than any 'Joe the Plumber' could even conceive of.
> 
> 
> ...



That's awesome. A nutter being honest for a change.


----------



## percysunshine (Aug 1, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



By posting that, you are no longer allowed to vote or run for office...

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

Obama's base the rights are: To remain silent and to an attorney


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

percysunshine said:


> .
> Smart educated  liberal academics from Harvard and Yale have done more damage to this nation than any 'Joe the Plumber' could even conceive of.
> 
> 
> ...



Message boards have completely demolished the myth of the "Liberal Intellectual Elite" and for that I'm grateful


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 1, 2015)

They tried testing, like asking to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar or asked to recite the Declaration of Independence. Thank god they discontinued it, although the Right keeps thinking of ways to keep "certain people" from voting.


----------



## amrchaos (Aug 1, 2015)

Why don't we skip the Bullshit and let only lawyers vote?

That way, we will get rid of all those hacks who think they are patriots or understand what the constitution is about but don't!!

P.S.  I'm not a lawyer!!


----------



## Toro (Aug 1, 2015)

bear513 said:


> I remember leaving a voting booth around 1995 and running into my mom, I will never forget what she asked me "You know who to vote for right?"
> 
> I told her what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> I voted for bugs bunny, hoped in my 95 stang and went back to work.



It's very rude to say "fuck" to your mom.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> They tried testing, like asking to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar or asked to recite the Declaration of Independence. Thank god they discontinued it, although the Right keeps thinking of ways to keep "certain people" from voting.



*'Jelly bean test'* 
It also chronicles both legal and illegal means used to keep blacks away from the polls before the act passed.

There’s an authentic Ku Klux Klan uniform and an interactive recreation of the “jelly bean test,” a technique used by some Jim Crow-era registrars to prevent blacks from voting. The registrar would ask voters to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar.

“The tendency was for white voters to somehow get it right and for black voters to get it wrong,” Rowley said.
Exhibit traces Voting Rights Act - US news - Life - Race ethnicity NBC News

You mean back when the Klan was democratic ??


----------



## CowboyTed (Aug 1, 2015)

I think the RWers could be right and we need to test peoples education level before allowing them to vote.

Is education level tied to voting tendencies PolitiFact Georgia


----------



## Hugo Furst (Aug 1, 2015)

CowboyTed said:


> I think the RWers could be right and we need to test peoples education level before allowing them to vote.
> 
> Is education level tied to voting tendencies PolitiFact Georgia





Nope, totally against it.

Just think of how many more votes Gore would have had, it the people that voted for him in Florida could read and write.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

How bout we drop the testing and just require a valid ID and proof of citizenship??


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 1, 2015)

"Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote"

Why most on the right are hostile to the fundamental right to vote.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV


Obviously the OP doesn't know – or doesn't care – that this is un-Constitutional.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

The OP could give a shit less about voting rights, he is trying to get you folks to realize how fucking stupid you have become and that allowing an ignorant group to vote will have adverse affects on us all.

Now you hating fucking shit mongers can go back to painting that hating scene with your broad nasty fucking stereotypical sentiment in your childish fucking closed minded little hate filled little black boy worlds ............


----------



## whitehall (Aug 1, 2015)

Testing should be required for school, not voting.


----------



## Political Junky (Aug 1, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV
> ...


Doesn't care is my guess.


----------



## Camp (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> The OP could give a shit less about voting rights, he is trying to get you folks to realize how fucking stupid you have become and that allowing an ignorant group to vote will have adverse affects on us all.
> 
> Now you hating fucking shit mongers can go back to painting that hating scene with your broad nasty fucking stereotypical sentiment in your childish fucking closed minded little hate filled little black boy worlds ............


How absurd and bizarre is it to be getting a lecture about hate from this person?


----------



## peach174 (Aug 1, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> They tried testing, like asking to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar or asked to recite the Declaration of Independence. Thank god they discontinued it, although the Right keeps thinking of ways to keep "certain people" from voting.




Now they vote for the same party that did that to them in the past, who now keeps them poor and in Ghettos, shitty schools an aborts 63% of their population.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 1, 2015)

QUOTE
	
="DrDoomNGloom, post: 11964496, member: 47981"] QUOTE
	
="Truth2Know, post: 11964488, member: 52633"]Here's a test question to see if you should vote: Are you a financial support or drain on America
	
?

I posted a thread on this in May - Voting Privileges System Needed US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The thesis is that only those who financially support our country (in any give year) should be permitted to vote. This doesn't require any specific knowledge of American history or current events, but if you are making money
	
 and paying your
	
 taxes
	
 it means
	
 that you must know something.[ QUOTE
	
]


I could get behind this ..............

Let's extend this one step
	
 farther, only those who work legally for the full 4 yr period get to vote in presidential elections
	
.[ QUOTE
	
]


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Why Testing Should Be Required To Vote"
> 
> Why most on the right are hostile to the fundamental right to vote.


Most of them are hostile to the idea of the massively ignorant voting - as they should be.  

Unfortunately, most of them also show that they are not actual small government conservatives at the same time in trying to allow the government the most awesome power of all - the power to decide who is watching over them.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a test question to see if you should vote: Are you a financial support or drain on America
> ...


Of course - remove the power of the vote from those that are poor and watch how they keep their rights intact. 

Do you really understand what that means - you want an underclass that does not have the right to vote and by extension does not have any rights at all.  Those will disappear pretty quickly as their 'masters' vote more shit away from them and over to themselves.  Perhaps you can simply put chains on them and force them into servitude now - why bother with the interim...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


No, it is not.

Do you REALLY have to ask why a basic understanding of government, how it works and what the bill of rights represents is integral in voting?

It never cease to amaze me how people can think that the utterly ignorant can go to the voting booth and cast a vote that 'represents' them.  It is essentially impossible to do so without the most basic diligence on their part in investigating the candidates and how the government operates.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> This is a double edged sword
> 
> in our society today.
> 
> ...


This is the core problem.  I don't think people that are utterly ignorant of political realities to vote either - that is asinine.  Why should someone that has no knowledge of what is going on vote?  They are not voting their best interest, they are voting for whichever commercial they liked told them to vote for.  Want to know why money has such huge influence and airtime is far more important than actual issues - here it is.  Ignorant voters.

But there is simply no way to solve that issue.  If you really are a small government person and do not trust the government to run most things then how in the hell can you trust it to decide who votes?  That is simply crazy.

The real problem is that, at some point, those you do not back and disagree with are going to take power - that is a cold hard fact.  I would challenge the rightwingers that back voting tests to see if they would be terribly upset if a question such as: 

Q: What is the best way to stimulate an economy?
A: increase taxes on the wealthy and use that to increase government spending.

happened to appear on said test.  If I want liberals to pass the test in far grater numbers than conservatives I can easily make a test that will do so and vice versa.  There is no way I would EVER trust the government with such awesome power and, by the very CORE of conservative thought, you should not be entertaining such thoughts either.

The REAL change that needs to be made is trashing this idea that voting is some sort of right.  It is not.  It is a civic DUTY that comes with certain OBLIGATIONS.  Namely that you study and understand the issues, candidates and what they represent.  If you do not take the time then you are obligated to abstain.  If you do then you should get out there and vote.  The only person, however, that can judge this is the person themselves.  Anyone else conveys far to much power.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 1, 2015)

This is the same reason why Israelis won't let "Palestinians" vote in their elections; they see what a fucking mess we've made of it


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> Of course - remove the power of the vote from those that are poor and watch how they keep their rights intact.
> 
> Do you really understand what that means - you want an underclass that does not have the right to vote and by extension does not have any rights at all.  Those will disappear pretty quickly as their 'masters' vote more shit away from them and over to themselves.  Perhaps you can simply put chains on them and force them into servitude now - why bother with the interim...



No, you are over thinking it, just a measure to ensure lazy ass little black boys who contribute noting to society have no say in that society.

Really just an incentive for tit sucking blue gums to get off their lazy ass and go to work.

Little work = little vote ...........

But you go a head and keep spouting that repressing the poor ....................

They poor cause they don't work stupid ..


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> This is the same reason why Israelis won't let "Palestinians" vote in their elections; they see what a fucking mess we've made of it




No just like with blacks, instead of having families they can support based on their wage earning abilities, they breed for numbers of to voters.

Other cultures show much more constraint in family size.

The old statement, they breed like cockroaches had implications then which can be seen now .................

To your example muslims would be the same as blacks ...........


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


Do any of you idiots who make such ridiculous suggestions ask yourselves how you would accomplish your moronic ideas?  How do you determine if someone is working?  Self employed people sometimes forego income while they build their business; living off savings, loans or money from relatives.  Some people do very well; save millions and take a year or more off.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 1, 2015)

Ideal voting criteria for the future...

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Do any of you idiots who make such ridiculous suggestions ask yourselves how you would accomplish your moronic ideas?  How do you determine if someone is working?  Self employed people sometimes forego income while they build their business; living off savings, loans or money from relatives.  Some people do very well; save millions and take a year or more off.



Ever heard of Income taxes, you are required to file SS and medicare tax on any income above $500.

Being a total fucking moron you have no clue self employed are required to file self employment taxes.

Individuals dba / business's are required to file taxes yearly.

Seriously, you come out acting as if you are a hero and now look you are a big fat zero....................


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Ideal voting criteria for the future...
> 
> 1. US citizen
> 
> ...


Shouldn't anyone receiving government aid be barred from voting?  Or only poor people?


----------



## initforme (Aug 1, 2015)

Yeah sure lets create a test to vote but at 77 I am entitled to an exemption.   Facts are facts


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ideal voting criteria for the future...
> ...


If you have paid into the Social Security or Medicaid systems throughout your working career, you've done your bit for King and Country, and can still vote.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


How about people who pay sales tax, gas tax or local taxes?


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Only if they're not doing it with Welfare Money...


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course - remove the power of the vote from those that are poor and watch how they keep their rights intact.
> ...


I am not over thinking anything.  You appear to be under thinking it.  I understand that you think this will limit voting to those that 'think correctly' in your little world.  That is not the case.

You will find yourself in a government that sill soon bar YOU from voting.


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 1, 2015)

WillHaftawaite said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Sure, retirees can vote – as long as they meet the income tax metric. Or perhaps a reduced target that is age based.

Remember, wages are only one factor of income taxes paid. Interest, dividends, capital gains, IRA distributions, pensions, annuities, rental income, and social security benefits are all taxed as income. As a retiree, I know this very well.


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> A person who lives under a bridge has as much a right to vote as a CEO
> 
> That is how our country was founded


No it's not. Here's some history of the vote: Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Does it really make sense to you that a homeless person has as much say in how America is run as a CEO?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > A person who lives under a bridge has as much a right to vote as a CEO
> ...


Absolutely

A homeless man will vote for the candidate who will make his life better
A CEO will vote for the candidate who will make his life better

It all evens out


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 1, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...


No voting system is perfect. The problem I see with the current "everyone gets a vote" system is the threat of a large, non-contributing group of people being manipulated by politicians who give away public funds to buy votes. Can't buy enough votes with the current voter base? No problem. Bring in illegal immigrants and don't check voter ID's.

The problem you see with having the privilege to vote tied to income taxes paid is that those who don't pay taxes have no say in selecting their representatives. This will enable even more to be taken from the poor by the rich. (By the way, how do you get blood from a turnip?)

I'd rather entrust the future of this nation to those who have demonstrated the ability to work and pay taxes than to those who have proven they have no inclination to work while demanding more and more.


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 1, 2015)

Is there any reason the citizenship test administered to legal and qualified immigrants should NOT be requisite in order to register to vote at all?


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


The number of CEO's is pretty fixed. The number of homeless, indigent, non-working citizens has no bounds. The unproductive will overwhelm the productive. Read Atlas Shrugged.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> [
> No voting system is perfect. The problem I see with the current "everyone gets a vote" system is the threat of a large, non-contributing group of people being manipulated by politicians who give away public funds to buy votes. Can't buy enough votes with the current voter base? No problem. Bring in illegal immigrants and don't check voter ID's.
> 
> The problem you see with having the privilege to vote tied to income taxes paid is that those who don't pay taxes have no say in selecting their representatives. This will enable even more to be taken from the poor by the rich. (By the way, how do you get blood from a turnip?)
> ...




I see so if the poor have nothing and the rich have it all, what exactly were the rich going to take advantage of the poor and take??

Why can most of you not say, yeah, working once a year for the majority of the year should entitle one to vote.

Why are ya'll so sure you need a voice when you put in no capital.

What exactly do those non workers contribute to society again??


----------



## SuperDemocrat (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV



Why can't we test if they are actually U.S. citizens before we test for anything else?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



So believing right wing made up stuff is intelligence but believing left wing made up stuff is stupidity?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > A person who lives under a bridge has as much a right to vote as a CEO
> ...



Yes it does make sense. 
Why should a CEO have more of a say? Just because he has more money? Why should money be the deciding factor in all of this?

In the US money buys politicians anyway. Democracy is dead (if it ever existed).


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> So believing right wing made up stuff is intelligence but believing left wing made up stuff is stupidity?



Neither side should make up shit ..............

What are you referring to as far as right wing made up stuff??

The left has, global warming climate change, white superiority, war on women, cops are worse than black thugs, lets not enforce laws on the books, yada, yada ............

The lefts bull shit has a horrendous stench and is easily identifiable ............

You were saying about the right??


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No one said money was a deciding factor, work was the measure.

Has nothing to do with amount or who is making more, simply that you work and contribute to society through taxes.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > So believing right wing made up stuff is intelligence but believing left wing made up stuff is stupidity?
> ...





DrDoomNGloom said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > So believing right wing made up stuff is intelligence but believing left wing made up stuff is stupidity?
> ...



What it may be is neither here nor there right now. This isn't a discussion about what is the made up stuff. This is a discussion about voting. So, keep with the program.

No one should make up stuff, but they do. They do because the voters often prefer the made up shit to the reality.

In German in 1990 Helmut Kohl's right wing CDU party said that reunification of Germany would be all flowers. The left wing SPD said it would be a hard road.
The people voted in the right wing CDU. 
The people got the hard road the SPD had said would happen.

So in the end they were less prepare for the hard road because they thought they could just vote for the positive message.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yes it does make sense.
> Why should a CEO have more of a say? Just because he has more money? Why should money be the deciding factor in all of this?
> 
> In the US money buys politicians anyway. Democracy is dead (if it ever existed).



As I have already stated, the amount one makes would have no bearing.

One vote is all one could and will ever get.

The assertion was that you needed to contribute to that society by working if you would like a say in it.

Even if you paid in no taxes, as long as you were working, then you would have money coming in and not be as much of a burden on society.

You want to have a say in society, then contribute to that society, but if we have to take care of you, then we shall determine as a group of workers / payers just exactly what we are willing to pay for.

Want a voice in that process, get a fucking job.

Does that register in your little simpleton brain??


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> What it may be is neither here nor there right now. This isn't a discussion about what is the made up stuff. This is a discussion about voting. So, keep with the program.
> 
> No one should make up stuff, but they do. They do because the voters often prefer the made up shit to the reality.
> 
> ...




We are not discussing Germany, remember as you reminded me this is a discussion about voting in the US .................


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...




Okay, I'll work from the basis of work. This is all hyperthetical, we don't need to be debating the finer points, just the main point. 

In 2012 there was a presidential election. 
In 2008 there was a big economic decline in the US and other countries.

So, you have a job in 2008, you voted Obama. But because of the economic crisis that had started in 2007 you lost your job in 2009. By 2012 the number of jobs was not that high. A lot of poor people had been out of work for a while. So you take their vote away from them. Then the 2012 election would be skewed towards people in work, or people with money. So they'd less likely vote Obama. So it would constantly favor the richer party. 

That doesn't make sense.

But imagine that I went to work in Wall Street. I make $50 million in three years then decide to retire on this money. Do I lose my vote or not?

I'm paying taxes when I spend my money. Just as anyone who spends money does. However I'm not paying taxes on wages because I don't earn a wage.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it does make sense.
> ...



Stop with the insults. I don't talk to people who insult. So, make you choice now, the next time I won't be forgiving.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...


They are still citizens

The CEOs own a lot more congressmen than homeless people do
Shrug that


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > What it may be is neither here nor there right now. This isn't a discussion about what is the made up stuff. This is a discussion about voting. So, keep with the program.
> ...



Did you not see the point  I was making? Should I be more explicit here? 

What happened in Germany in the 1990s is an EXAMPLE of how people function. 

Politicians make up stuff because people PREFER to listen to the made up stuff rather than the truth. Do you see how my example PROVES that this is the case? 

This is an example of someone who is not only saying what they think, but also BACKING UP what they think with EVIDENCE. Do you understand this?


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Having a job and more money is simply an indication of the CEO's ability to rationally think and act. 

Those sleeping under bridges may be highly intelligent and millionaires that choose to eschew the trappings of civilization, but why take the risk of giving such people a say in matters that impact the prosperity and safety of the entire country?

Do you want the vagrant or CEO casting the deciding vote?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

If you have 50 million in a bank collecting interest, then you will be paying taxes.

Even if you offshore it, when you bring it in to the country you would pay taxes thus qualifying you to vote.

If you had $50 million it would have to be kept in some form, cash or collateral, either way you will be paying taxes.

Those who have big money are going to contribute to society in one form or another thus they will have voting privileges.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Oh I'm scared for life ..............


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...


Does it matter?

One man, one vote

The standard our country was built upon


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Did you not see the point  I was making? Should I be more explicit here?
> 
> What happened in Germany in the 1990s is an EXAMPLE of how people function.
> 
> ...




Why yes it is, but you can't tie it to this conversation.

You imply A & B, state A is true so therefore B has to be true.

The sky is blue. Babies eat pussy.

Just because the first statement is true does not make the second statement true.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> Having a job and more money is simply an indication of the CEO's ability to rationally think and act.
> 
> Those sleeping under bridges may be highly intelligent and millionaires that choose to eschew the trappings of civilization, but why take the risk of giving such people a say in matters that impact the prosperity and safety of the entire country?
> 
> Do you want the vagrant or CEO casting the deciding vote?



Really? To think rationally and act? Hmm. Maybe they got lucky. Some CEOs are there because their father ran the company and handed it over to their son. Doesn't mean the son has these abilities. 

Maybe they just simply made a company that did well because an opening existed, or because they had inside information, or because they bribed someone..... 

If you do business in China, for example (and many American businesses do), you have to know how to play the system, and you can get lucky, or you can get the govt on your back and end up in prison, it's all about luck, all about Guanxi, a system of "favors" or "knowing the right people". 

People sleeping under bridges might just have got unlucky in life. They might have lost their wife to cancer and become depressed. They might have been born with a mental illness and been unable to work for a particular company, been fired and others look at their work history and their letter of "recommendation" and not want to give them a new job. 
So many reasons.

But here's the reason why votes should be one person one vote no matter why.

If politicians know that homeless people can't vote, they'll do nothing for homeless people. If they know homeless people can and do vote then they might change things and homeless people might have opportunities to get out of their situation.

The same theory holds for all groups of people.

Black people, for example. If they can't vote then politicians don't look out for their needs. 
Women, for example. If they can't vote then politicians don't look out for their needs. 

Why should homeless people be different? Surely they need someone looking out for their needs so they can get out of homelessness.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Did you not see the point  I was making? Should I be more explicit here?
> ...




Are you going to carry on being pedantic, or are you going to debate sensibly? If you're going to be pedantic I'll ignore you, simple as. Last warning.


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > Having a job and more money is simply an indication of the CEO's ability to rationally think and act.
> ...


You reap what you sow.

Good night.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Dude you made my ignore list .............


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...



So if you happen to be unlucky, you reap what you sow and you should never have representation ever again? You should remain homeless because no one will ever look out for you?

I'm reading a novel about Ancient Rome and a boy who ends up in slavery. Many slaves were slaves from birth. Did they reap what they sowed? The boy had a good life but his father got killed and the boy ended up as a slave. Did he reap what he sowed?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



Good. You're one of those people who deserves to be on mine.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2015)

The simple concept of our form of government is that you get to vote for the person who represents you

That person represents the rich, the poor
The highly educated, the slightly educated
Men, women
White, minorities
Urban, rural

One person, one vote

Why do conservatives oppose it?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said: 

"What are you referring to as far as right wing made up stuff??"

You can't be serious:

Obama was born in Kenya

Obama's a Muslim

Obama's a socialist/Marxist/Fascist

Obama's 'responsible' for an 'increase' of racism

Obama's 'guilty' of 'treason' because of the Iran accord

Obama wants to 'destroy Israel'

Obama 'knew about' and orchestrated a 'cover up' for fast and furious, Benghazi, and the IRS

The president's EO deferring action on some undocumented immigrants is 'amnesty'

Obama tried to 'ban' 5.56 NATO ammunition

States have the 'right' to 'secede'

The law doesn't apply to undocumented immigrants

HRC 'lied' about or tried to 'cover up' Benghazi

HRC 'broke the law' concerning emails

Planned Parent 'broke the law' concerning tissue samples used in research

An embryo/fetus is a 'baby'

Abortion is 'murder'

And this just scratches the surface of all the lies, fallacies, and like made up nonsense that comes from the right.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Only to an unintelligent, uneducated person.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 1, 2015)

Camp said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It is the height of stupidity.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



No. Not at all.

Knowing the 1st Amendment doesn't help you make the best choice of who will represent you the most effectively, quite clearly. 

Imagine. Two people stand for election. One represents your needs, the other doesn't. Do I need knowledge of the 1st amendment to make that choice?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



Why exactly? It's easy to slate something, no so easy to articulate it.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



To make an intelligent, informed choice?  Absolutely.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> "What are you referring to as far as right wing made up stuff??"
> 
> ...



Don't encourage him. He's going off on tangents for the fun of it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



But knowing about the 1st Amendment doesn't help me to make an intelligence informed choice about the candidates.

To do that I have to know ABOUT THE CANDIDATES. I also need to have the skill of interpreting what is being said, and weighing up the evidence and coming to a decent conclusion based on all of this. 

Nowhere does this involve knowing anything about the 1st Amendment.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



It's so easy a caveman could figure it, and I will not spoonfeed idiots until they exhaust their clueless self-abasement.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 1, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...




Sounds like the best get out clause for someone who can't explain themselves.

So I'll give you a bit of advice. 

When I debate, I back up what I say. The MAIN reason I do so is to make sure what I have said is right. Then when I know I am probably right I don't need to resort to insults because I put my foot in something that simply isn't true. 

All you have done is said "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid". I asked you to explain why. You then just make a get out clause with the insinuation that someone is stupid who doesn't agree with you, even though you won't back up what you said.

Someone who just believes is someone who doesn't know.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 1, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Ideal voting criteria for the future...
> 
> 1. US citizen
> 
> ...


You are a citizen, you get to vote. Any other suggestion is unAmerican.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> This is the same reason why Israelis won't let "Palestinians" vote in their elections; they see what a fucking mess we've made of it


They let anyone who is a citizen of Israel vote.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 1, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Do any of you idiots who make such ridiculous suggestions ask yourselves how you would accomplish your moronic ideas?  How do you determine if someone is working?  Self employed people sometimes forego income while they build their business; living off savings, loans or money from relatives.  Some people do very well; save millions and take a year or more off.
> ...


Fucking dumbs shits like are allowed to vote!  As self employed for twenty years and paying more in taxes than pricks like you make, I understand taxes.  The suggestion was that if you don't work you don't vote.  Why should some prick who inherited ten million from his dad but never worked himself be allowed to vote?


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 1, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Unemployment benefits?  Social security disability?


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 1, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > A person who lives under a bridge has as much a right to vote as a CEO
> ...


Yes. If you don't, you have no fucking idea what makes this nation great.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 1, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...


Atlas Shrugged?  A fictional, poorly written story by a talentless leech.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Fucking dumbs shits like are allowed to vote!  As self employed for twenty years and paying more in taxes than pricks like you make, I understand taxes.  The suggestion was that if you don't work you don't vote.  Why should some prick who inherited ten million from his dad but never worked himself be allowed to vote?



That would be the same prick you want to take what % of his money.

Fucking ni$$er hypocrites ...................

Just like I told the last fucking ignorant moron, anyone with $10 million is going to be paying taxes and contributing to society, if nothing else but the interest income  on the fucking $10 million.

What makes tit sucking entitled little black piece of shit like you make you can take other's wealth??
-


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 1, 2015)

That spamming bitch is going on ignore .................


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ideal voting criteria for the future...
> ...





paddymurphy said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ideal voting criteria for the future...
> ...


Au contraire.

'_American_' is what Americans _*say*_ it is.

Any attempt to _suppress discussion_ on that or any other politically relevant subject is _un-American_.

Next contestant, please.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





paddymurphy said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Nope.

They, too, put in their time, and contributed, until they lost their ability to work, and they, too, get a pass, and would still be allowed to vote.

There are permutations, to be sure, and the devil's in the details, but, generally speaking, if you're on food stamps and TANF and Medicaid, you don't vote.

Otherwise, you'll automatically vote for the Party or Candidate most likely to allow you to continue your Welfare Queen (or King) lifestyle, and that simply won't do.

Only people paying the freight, and those who can't pay through no fault of their own, should be allowed to vote...

Not those sucking on the State's welfare teat and likely to vote to keep the goodies coming their way...

That's a sure-fire road to eventual financial collapse and makes no sense.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Fucking dumbs shits like are allowed to vote!  As self employed for twenty years and paying more in taxes than pricks like you make, I understand taxes.  The suggestion was that if you don't work you don't vote.  Why should some prick who inherited ten million from his dad but never worked himself be allowed to vote?
> ...


Whiter than you moron. Pay more in taxes than Wal-mart pays you.   I support you in your mobile home with your sister/wife and brood of inbreds.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


And most Americans would think these fascist suggestions on limiting voting ridiculous.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


Those aren't fascist suggestions...

Merely suggestions...

Only those who want to perpetuate the Nanny State would see them as ridiculous...

Those who contribute should have a say in where their money goes...

Those who do not contribute should not have a say in where the money of _*others*_ goes...

That's not fascist...

That's fair.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


And if your wealth depends on government contracts, you don't get to vote because you are likely to vote to keep the goodies coming your way.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


It's fascist and you are clueless.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ...And if your wealth depends on government contracts, you don't get to vote because you are likely to vote to keep the goodies coming your way.


Nahhhhh...

If you contribute, you get a vote...

If you do not contribute, you do not get a vote...

That is only fair.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


No, it's not, and no, I'm not, although it is in your agenda-driven interest to portray it as otherwise.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


My only agenda is to have fun responding to the mentally defective nutter like you who, sadly, are serious about the fascist notions you hold.  No rational American, with any understamding of the nature of democracy, would find your ideas anything but outrageously wrong.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Do explain......America wants to know


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ...And if your wealth depends on government contracts, you don't get to vote because you are likely to vote to keep the goodies coming your way.
> ...



Everyone gets to vote
If someone represents you, you get to vote on who does it best


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I shouldn't need to back up what I said in this case, and I hate leading the slow.

The explanation is as easy as pie, and common sense.

Without knowing what your rights are, you cannot vote with any certainty that the candidate for whom you vote - the one who supports "your interests" - will see to "your interests" with any care as to your rights.  You will be voting blind.  Not only that, but you will be negating a vote from someone who is unlike yourself educated as to his rights and how those rights affect society as a whole and himself individually.

Indeed, "this is my point and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid".   I see no reason to permit the welfare pookies to vote to increase their own take of people's private assets and destroy everyone else's rights in the meantime, among other things.  I would restrict voting to those educated and contributory to society.  Anything else is like letting children vote.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

Of course you "need to back up what [you]I said in this case" and every case.

Your assertion is only proof of what you assert.

It is not proof you are right, only of what you believe.

OK, you believe in the OP, and you are wrong.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course you "need to back up what [you]I said in this case" and every case.
> 
> Your assertion is only proof of what you assert.
> 
> ...



I just did, and of course I believe in the OP.  He's me. 

Oy vey, the density of skulls here ...


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Makes no sense

Knowing your rights affects other areas of citizenship. I can decide which candidate meets my needs without memorizing the constitution

It is you who lacks a knowledge of our constitution by trying to limit voting rights of We the People

You want to prevent a welfare recipient from voting for more free stuff but are willing to ignore the free stuff that a CEO is getting


----------



## Camp (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


You proposal is in no way common sense. Common sense is what a majority of folks believe makes sense. Obviously from the postings in this thread that is not the case. 
As has been pointed out, but you choose to ignore, you are demanding people know your selected amendment when you yourself show you don't know the one that gives people the right to vote. Your suggestion for test has been ruled unconstitutional. You would have to change the constitution to strip Americans of their right to vote. 
You should quit this nonsense argument while you are behind and looking like a dope. It can only get worse.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you "need to back up what [you]I said in this case" and every case.
> ...


No, you haven't, and, yes, you should.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I would definitely require YOU to test before being permitted to vote.


----------



## Camp (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


One of the Koch brothers is calling for an end to Corporate welfare. They are desperate and in panic mode with both Trump, Clinton and Sanders showing polls of destroying their selected candidates.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy simply wants to keep Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

Camp said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Try that again, please.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Indeed I have.  That you cannot understand it is not my problem.  If you have a disagreement with it, feel free to outline it.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Billy simply wants to keep Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.



Show me the Constitutional right to vote.


----------



## Camp (Aug 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-02/koch-calls-for-end-to-corporate-welfare-for-wall-street


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


I am a constitutional genius

Looks like you would be on the outside looking in


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Of course you are.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV





Great.  It will be a shoo-in for Democrats.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy, very politely, RW is a genius in comparison to you as a hamster; there is no doubt.  There is no reason why, despite your OP assertion, we need testing.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


I'm afraid you would fail my constitutional test

No vote for you


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

vote Nazi!


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Billy, very politely, RW is a genius in comparison to you as a hamster; there is no doubt.  There is no reason why, despite your OP assertion, we need testing.



Your opinion is noted, and dispensed with.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

So good that you understand the worth of assertions, whether yours or mine, without support.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> I shouldn't need to back up what I said in this case, and I hate leading the slow.
> 
> The explanation is as easy as pie, and common sense.
> 
> ...



You shouldn't need to back up what you say? Really? I say the opposite. I say too many people pretend they don't need to back up their argument for the simple reason that they CAN'T back up their argument. 

I could give plenty of examples. But in general I find those people who won't back themselves up are also the people who don't bother listening to what others say. They merely pump their own agenda for all it's worth and don't give a damn about anything else.

You say the explanation is "as easy as pie" or "common sense", if so then you shouldn't have any problems backing it up then, should you?

But here's the thing. You say it's as easy as pie and common sense, but people don't agree with you. Why is that if it's so easy and so common sense? Maybe you're wrong.

I don't disagree with what you've said about understanding your rights and your own interests. However I don't think that is the whole issue here.

Sometimes your rights aren't the most important thing in the world. I'm not saying this lightly. I'm saying this from the perspective of an ordinary person. Most people want their kids to have a decent education, for them and their kids to have decent work opportunities and for decent healthcare for them and their family. These are the BASICS of politics. Rights come second. 
I don't want this to descend into an argument about whether this is the case or not. We don't need to go there. Just that you understand this is where I'm coming from, even if you disagree. 
The example I'll use to back myself up is China. In the 1970s China was a mess, Mao had completely destroyed the country. Then Deng XiaoPing gained power (without supposedly being in charge at that) and moved things forwards. 1989 happened, the people have moved forwards. People are looking at doing better for themselves, they're interested in education, they're interested in jobs and healthcare. Those who don't have these aren't interested in rights, rights don't put food on the plate, they don't increase your prospects, they don't do much.
There are groups who are worried about rights in China more than the Han Chinese. We don't need to discuss these, we know they exist and we know why. Basically there are times when rights will come above what I have said. This isn't about black and white, we're dealing with shade of gray. 

Moving back to the US, most white people are looking at the essentials of life, education, jobs, health. Black people may put rights ahead of other stuff, so too Hispanics. But still, many are still looking for the essentials to life.

Now, if they vote for someone who will give them education, jobs, health and hope, they'll vote for that person rather than the person saying they'll give them their freedom of speech, for example. Again, not black and white, not going to happen in every case.


But to move to your last point. You'd only let those who are educated vote. So, then who gets educated? If a politician could stop a certain class of people from being educated so they wouldn't vote for someone else, this would happen. This is EXTREMELY dangerous. It stops politicians thinking about all people and allows them to completely ignore people. Hence why democracy is one man one vote. 

The problem that maybe you have, I'm not sure, is that you're looking only at the US. 

Look at other countries's political systems and you'll see how things can work better. Still problems, still things to be fixed or whatever, but compared to the US it is so much better.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ...My only agenda is to have fun responding to the mentally defective nutter like you who, sadly, are serious about the fascist notions you hold.  No rational American, with any understamding of the nature of democracy, would find your ideas anything but outrageously wrong.


Pray, tell us, which amongst these, do you find to be '_fascis_t' in nature?

-------------------

1. US citizen

2. 18 (or 21) or above

3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place

4. has passed a standardized national literacy test

5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)

6. registers anew with each change of residence (rock-solid proof of citizenship and residency)

7. not a convicted felon

8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces

9. resident of the district in which you wish to vote

10. you are not presently and legally judged as mentally incompetent

11. criminal penalties two notches shy of crucifixion for violating the above

---------------

Given that a number of these are already built into the Constitution, and that one or more simply lend themselves to enforcing other criteria, *DO* tell us what is particularly '_fascist_' about those you object to,

This thread is an open discussion pertaining to changing the criteria for voting, and I merely tossed in a couple of extras which had already been mentioned elsewhere, to sweeten the discussion pot.

Simply labeling them as 'fascist' and throwing rocks at the articulator, like some kind of petulant child, is not the mark of an all-'round high-order contributor.

Otherwise, you indulge me in one of *MY* rarely-but-immensely-enjoyed Fun Agenda items... namely, calling-out lightweights who don't have anything behind their opening salvo but rock-throwing and name-calling.

Now... in an increasingly complex world, where basic education and perception and decision-making skills can arguably be judged as mandatory, in order to vote, and in a world where there is a marked tendency for the masses to vote themselves long-term benefits that they do not have to pay for, and which, if left unchecked for another generation or two, will surely bankrupt us...

*DO* tell us, Oh Wise One, what is particularly 'fascist' about any of the points, above.

You are also welcome to address the resolution of those Education and Welfare-State issues in some other fashion, assuming that you (1) recognize them as problems and (2) have the capacity to conjure and articulate other possibilities.

This isn't about what's Currently Politically Correct, junior, this is about the long-term health and survival and well-being of the Republic, and its People, without going bankrupt, or serving-up Welfare Mob Rule to our grandchildren or their grandchildren, and ensuring that we have the right mix of criteria for voting, moving forward, is a key element of that long-term survival.

Simple citizenship is not enough. To this day, we continue to restrict voting privileges based upon age, mental capacity and (in some states) felony conviction status.

We have, in the past, removed (and rightfully so) restrictions regarding property, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

There is nothing that prevents us in future from fine-tuning the List of Voting Restrictions to include other categories not previously imagined or deemed necessary in earlier times, but which present as needful or wise, in our present or some future time.

If there is sufficient merit in a given Limitation or Collection of Limitations and if there is sufficient agreement amongst the People, then we will have a Constitutional Amendment to embed such within our system.

This thread speculates upon such Limitations, as one tiny portion of that national conversation.

So, if your 'agenda of fun' includes anything beyond Basic Rock-Throwing 101 and Name-Calling 102, then *DO* feel free to tell us more about your opinions, and why some of the above is a Bad Idea.

The floor is yours.

( this ought to be good )


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ...My only agenda is to have fun responding to the mentally defective nutter like you who, sadly, are serious about the fascist notions you hold.  No rational American, with any understamding of the nature of democracy, would find your ideas anything but outrageously wrong.
> ...


Why does someone have to be literate to vote?

There are other ways to get information


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> ...Why does someone have to be literate to vote? There are other ways to get information


That's a very good question, and I'm not sure that I've got the answer.

It has been tried before, back in Jim Crow days, to suppress the vote of a recently-emancipated minority demographic, and that was just plain wrong.

But, now that the basic literacy problem has been largely solved amongst that long-ago-emancipated minority demographic, it could not be used that way again.

Consequently, that frees us (The People) to decide whether it is in the best interests of The Republic and its People, to allow uneducated folk to help steer the Nation.

We would not trust an uneducated person to modify our Constitution or to judge a criminal or civil case or to fashion or audit or understand our financials and related prospects, or to pass judgment on something as complex as war and peace, in a given scenario.

Therefore, it can be argued that an uneducated person should not be entrusted with making decisions _related_ to those functions.

Freed of the old onus of Black Vote Suppression, the idea of a Literacy Test can be discussed far more dispassionately and efficiently.

It's not exactly an attractive recital given our present more open arrangement but Attractiveness is not the same as Reality nor the Needs of Good and Responsible Government.

For better or worse, that's about as far as my own thinking takes me on that one, at first glance.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...Why does someone have to be literate to vote? There are other ways to get information
> ...


Those uneducated people can still make the decision on who should represent them

Should a proxy be designated to decide what is best for the poor and uneducated?  Or should they decide for themselves?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Poor people are more likely to serve their country than the wealthy. Shouldn't they have the right to vote for those who may send them to war?


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> ...Those uneducated people can still make the decision on who should represent them...


Correct. As things currently stand.

Should we continue to move forward in that same manner?

I don't know.

There are good and true arguments for both perspectives.

On the 'negative' side, we can't perpetually sustain conditions in which uneducated folk continue to vote-in representatives who promise to preserve and/or increase The Dole.

Financial Responsibility vs. Nanny Statism seems to be the single most divisive issue on the American political canvas in our present age.



> ...Should a proxy be designated to decide what is best for the poor and uneducated?  Or should they decide for themselves?


Poor and illiterate are not the same thing, even if a higher incidence of illiteracy occurs amongst poor folk.

If we ever decide to bar illiterate folk from voting, I, for one, would assume that they would not get a 'proxy' who would simply vote the same way they would.

As to what is 'best' for the poor and uneducated, well, will they not stereotypically vote for those who promise to preserve and/or increase The Dole?

My money is on the answer to that being a resounding 'Yes'.

And, if true, is that not what we would be attempting to defend against - namely, Perpetual Dolists, forever voting to perpetuate and increase The Dole?

Over the long haul, that's suicidal... a sure-fire recipe for National Bankruptcy... and something that we don't need to bring down upon our heads,, now or later, if practicable.

Why permit conditions (the continued enfranchisement of a growing Dolist Population) that do nothing but perpetuate and increase The Dole?

That makes very little sense, over the long haul, and in the grander scheme of things, when viewed on the macro level.

Placing such voting restrictions on poor folk, simply for being poor, is simply far too un-palatable, for any but the most hyper-right-leaning folk.

But placing such voting restrictions on the uneducated can be argued more dispassionately and calmly and efficiently, and can be better defended.

Literacy is the most agreeable test of such education or lack thereof, and, of course, even if such an approach were animated within the American political fabric, the bar would be set fairly low, so that some basic and demonstrable competency with the Three Rs - as evidenced by a diploma from a grade school or high school - would probably suffice.

Now... whether that's a good idea, moving forward, as we contemplate changes to Voter Eligibility requirements, is another matter.

Looks good on paper, anyway.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Poor people are more likely to serve their country than the wealthy. Shouldn't they have the right to vote for those who may send them to war?


That's a damned good question, and one that has been plaguing the Public Hive-Mind since at least Vietnam times.

Is the answer a resurrection of The Draft for National Service, with the loopholes plugged, so that rich boys and girls don't get an "out" for going to school?


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Since we vote nearly every year, usually twice each year, how often do we test the nearly 200 million folks eligible to vote?   How often do we retest them?  How much do you think that will cost?  Are there appeals?  Voting is a right that is subject to the constitution.  So, each person denied the right to vote gets their day in federal court.  Who determine the questions on this test?  Which answer is right?  you earlier stated that the test was whether one worked. Then you changed it to pays taxes.  What taxes?  State, local or federal?  Do sales taxes, gas taxes, social security taxes count.  Does a person who is brilliant with regard to our history and constitution but does not work get to vote?  How about a millionaire who is an idiot about our government (trumps comes to mind)?  Does the taxes they pay mean more that their utter stupidity.  I have a brother in law who made several million in his life, had a massive stroke and is now disabled, does not work and collects social security.  Does he vote?  Frankly, is stupidity bars one from voting, your posing of this nonsense would disqualify you.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Billy simply wants to keep Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to vote.
> ...


As Professor Epps makes clear, not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – _five_ times in all.  In fact, _four_separate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “_The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged_ . . . .”  Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions.  Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ...My only agenda is to have fun responding to the mentally defective nutter like you who, sadly, are serious about the fascist notions you hold.  No rational American, with any understamding of the nature of democracy, would find your ideas anything but outrageously wrong.
> ...


3,4,5 & 8.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 2, 2015)

First, a test to become a parent.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...Those uneducated people can still make the decision on who should represent them...
> ...


Poor people vote for more public services
Rich people vote for lower taxes

each looks out for his own interests


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 2, 2015)

Toro said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV
> ...


Maybe a better question is "Who has taken $700 billion dollars from Medicare to pay for his health care program?"


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 2, 2015)

Educated people have such an overwhelming advantage over the uneducated that it is difficult to understand their fear.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

We had this same issue in the late 60s

18 year olds could be drafted to risk their lives for their country but could not vote for those who send them

A basic right of citizens


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Leaving out parts is a nasty business.  The text reads:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Not true.  Try again.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



But it was you who said the Constitution does not specify a right to vote


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

A good portion of America for a long time was not literate.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



So post the Constitutional specification.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> A good portion of America for a long time was not literate.



They weren't sucking at the government teat, either.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Read post 184 also supported by 200 years of case law
Specifically related to poll taxes and literacy tests


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > A good portion of America for a long time was not literate.
> ...



There are many wealthy literate people who make fortunes sucking on the government teat


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> ...Poor people vote for more public services
> Rich people vote for lower taxes
> each looks out for his own interests


Does not the vast Middle Class and Blue Collar Working Class *also* usually vote for lower taxes?

But, although there is a higher incidence of Illiteracy amongst the Poor, the two categories _*are*_, indeed, distinguishable, and may safely be treated separately.

The sole benefit of any such restriction on Literacy would probably be a '_thinning out of the herd_' a bit, to modestly reduce the size of the Dolist voting bloc.

Given that the Dolists rely upon the productivity and taxation of the rest of us, should they have an equal voice in distributing a pool of money to which they do not contribute?

It's an old debate that we have not yet resolved - at least not on a permanent basis, given that it keeps bubbling to the surface every so often.

And there is considerable merit in some of the arguments on both sides of that debate, IMHO.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 2, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Educated people have such an overwhelming advantage over the uneducated that it is difficult to understand their fear.


So why do Democrats want so many uneducated people to sneak into this country?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

If we let the mudwhistles in, we can let the illiterate in as well.

The OP is ludicrous.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...Poor people vote for more public services
> ...


I'm glad to see you admit to your intent
Keeping the lower classes from voting 

Why don't you advocate taking the vote away from rich people?  They get more from the government than poor people do


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Many legal decisions are based upon error credited to case law.  That is why there is no such thing as "settled law".

Take Dred Scott for instance.  Roe v Wade.  Marbury v Madison.

There is no Constitutional right to vote, and the right can be taken away except under noted conditions.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 2, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Educated people have such an overwhelming advantage over the uneducated that it is difficult to understand their fear.
> ...



My point.  Stupid voters are the Democrats' playground.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


Mitt Romney made it clear what he thought about the 47%

Turned out only 47% would vote for Romney


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

Voting is in an inalienable right.

Try to take it away, either party, and see what happens to it.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ...3,4,5 & 8





> ...3. presents a valid State or Federal -issued Identity Card (driver's license, state ID, etc.) at the polling place...


Why? You must present a valid ID for so many other aspects of our public life. Why should doing it in the context of 'voting' be any different? Especially when the object of the exercise is to prevent Illegal Aliens and other unauthorized people from casting a ballot. And most especially if accommodations can be made to ensure that even the poorest amongst us have easy access to the process for obtaining such ID card(s). And, given that we must present IDs so frequently in other aspects of our everyday public life, how does the presentation of an ID card at voting time constitute something as onerous as 'fascism', as you have alleged?



> ...4. has passed a standardized national literacy test...


Oh, that's a Limit on the Franchise, to be sure, but not all Limitations to the Franchise can rightfully be labeled as 'fascist' (whatever that is, other than a convenient handle).

If a person is illiterate, are they competent to judge the best choices, for political representation or what is and is not in the best interests of the Nation and its People?

There is a legitimate school of thought which says 'No', as evidenced by recurring national conversations on this subject, every so often.



> ...5. is not on welfare (defined here as SNAP and/or TANF and/or similar state or local general assistance)..


Yes. I understand your angst over this one. I'm fairly uncomfortable with this one myself. But discomfort and the doing of what is right, can be two distinctly different things.

Can we afford to perpetually sustain and expand Nanny-Statism (cradle-to-grave welfare accommodations) forever?

No.

Do those at the bottom of the barrel (on SNAP, TANF, etc.) usually vote for whoever is going to sustain and expand their welfare benefits?

Yes.

Is this not a self-defeating cycle that has never been broken in the several decades since large-scale and sustained Welfare first made its appearance way back in the 1960s with LBJ';s famous (or infamous) War on Poverty, which is still with us, and which has not yet yielded a decisive downward turn in Permanent Dolists?

Yes.

We have not yet succeeded in getting these people off The Dole.

And they keep voting to keep people in power who perpetuate The Dole.

Dolists want their Dole.

When does it end?

If we haven't been able to drag them off the Dole in the past 50 years, are other tactics becoming necessary, in a changing world, with increasingly shrinking resources?

Yes.

Is this one of those tactics?

Perhaps.



> ...8. not dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces...


Disagree.

This is a mere extension of the Convicted Felon restriction in some jurisdictions, it would seem, but one that would require implementation on the Federal level.

There are a great many things that you cannot do in American public and private life, if you have been Dishonorably Discharged from the US Armed Forces.

Are those other restrictions also 'fascist' in your eyes, or only with respect to voting?

Personally, I'd be quite content to see us, as a People, take this approach, for those who have dishonored themselves and their country while wearing its uniform.

But that's just me.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Voting is in an inalienable right.
> 
> Try to take it away, either party, and see what happens to it.


An inalienable right? Tell that to an under-age American, or a convicted felon, or an Illegal Alien, or a legally-declared mental incompetent.

We already have (and have long had) restrictions on who may vote in this country, and we still do.

Every so often, we revisit the fine-tuning of those restrictions, based upon the needs of the Nation and its People.

This is just one more trip down that discussion-path.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> ...I'm glad to see you admit to your intent. Keeping the lower classes from voting...


Why not? It's glaringly obvious, with or without the admission, isn't it?

But, then again, it's not Poor Folk that such a restriction would apply to... *merely those on The Dole* (SNAP, TANF, etc.).

You can be Poor, or Lower-Middle Class, and working, and contributing, and *not* be on The Dole.

So, a great many Po' Folk would still be voting, anyway.



> ...Why don't you advocate taking the vote away from rich people? They get more from the government than poor people do


Whatever for?

They're not a burden on the Public Treasury.

Now, if you want to revisit Taxation and Loopholes and Gubmint Contracts, that's fine.

In addition to preventing those on The Dole from voting, as a macro-level Conflict of Interest...

In trade...

What restrictions would you put on voting, for Rich Folk?


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Educated people have such an overwhelming advantage over the uneducated that it is difficult to understand their fear.


The vote gets overly-diluted in favor of Nanny-Statism, which, ultimately, is a slow kind of financial and societal suicide, even though it might take a few generations?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...I'm glad to see you admit to your intent. Keeping the lower classes from voting...
> ...


Rich people abide by the golden rule....he who has the gold, makes the rules

If a new bridge project will help a wealthy person who owns acres and acres of real estate on the other side of a river.......should that person be able to vote for the candidate who is pushing for the bridge to be built?


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> ...If a new bridge project will help a wealthy person who owns acres and acres of real estate on the other side of a river.......should that person be able to vote for the candidate who is pushing for the bridge to be built?


Yes. Because the number of people voting for that reason are sufficiently small so that small-scale Conflicts of Interest do not usually win, for purely those reasons.

And, because the cost of The Bridge is peanuts, compared to The Dole, and enforcement would be far too difficult.

On the flip side, the number of people on the Dole is vast, and sufficiently large so that large-scale Conflicts of Interest oftentimes *DO* win, for purely those reasons.

And, of course, because the cost of The Dole is enormous and growing more dangerously close to bankrupting us with each passing decade, and because enforcement would be relatively easy, through a simple real-time accessing of Welfare Rolls.

------------------

We can't eliminate *ALL* voting-related Conflicts of Interest, but we can eliminate *SOME*, and it makes sense to devote our limited enforcement resources to those Conflicts of Interest that have the most impact on our financial and societal health, rather than getting sidetracked with the penny ante stuff.

Or so it seems, at first glance.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...If a new bridge project will help a wealthy person who owns acres and acres of real estate on the other side of a river.......should that person be able to vote for the candidate who is pushing for the bridge to be built?
> ...


Actually, the money spent on the poor is peanuts compared to legislation that helps the wealthy

The wealthy even manage to make money off of welfare


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> ...Actually, the money spent on the poor is peanuts compared to legislation that helps the wealthy..


I don't mean to be rude, but that sure does sound 'anecdotal' to me, at first glance.

The cost of SNAP and TANF (and related Federal and State General Assistance [stereotypical welfare programming]) is enormous.

I find myself wondering whether you're anywhere close to being 'right' on that one.



> ...The wealthy even manage to make money off of welfare


This is not about Wealth Redistribution, or even what is 'fair'.

This is about allowing Dolists to perpetuate their place on The Dole by voting-in people who will promise to do that for them.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...Actually, the money spent on the poor is peanuts compared to legislation that helps the wealthy..
> ...


The wealthy are crafty enough not to seek direct handouts but find ways to write the tax code, craft labor laws, international tariffs, infrastructure improvements, subsidies, legal protections that add billions to their pockets


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


True, but we're talking peanuts, vs. the vast sums of money we spend perpetuating The Dole, and chronic or lifelong Dolists, who, in their own crafty and clever ways, find the means to circumvent or override Clinton-esque Welfare Reforms of the 1990s, and we're talking about the Negatives that we CAN overcome, not the ones we can't.


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 2, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Good afternoon. Sorry to mislead you with the “reap what you sow” comment. I was referring to the output of a voting system (what is sowed) that permits politicians to be elected that act for their own, not the country’s interests (what is reaped).

I have faith in Americans. I believe that limiting the vote to those that have jobs and/or pay taxes would not result in the election of politicians who stick it to the poor. As a nation, we have proven to be very compassionate.

Our leaders should be elected by an electorate capable of rational thought, those able to determine what policies are best for America as a whole. I proposed using the amount of Federal income and social insurance taxes paid as a metric to determine that a person is (probably) capable of rational thought and can be entrusted with the privilege of voting. I believe this voting system would enable us to reap more benefits as a nation, including improving the plight of the poor.


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Poor people are more likely to serve their country than the wealthy. Shouldn't they have the right to vote for those who may send them to war?


You get paid for being in the service. Thus you are working. Thus you vote.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


No one.


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 2, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


My proposal is to tie voting privilege to Federal income and social insurance taxes paid. The data base is already in place every year.

Allowing everyone to vote is akin to giving everyone who has at least one share in a company one, and only one, vote regarding company business. How long do you think companies would last if this were the case?


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


And the other four amendments that mention it?  The numerous voting rights cases that have held that limiting based on things like the ability to pay a poll tax or to passa test were unconstitutional?  Your entire argument is based on the lie that people on welfare vote to stay on welfare. Most don't vote at all.


----------



## Camp (Aug 2, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...


When did voting become a privilege and not a right? Why are so many here unaware or just ignoring the constitutional judgements by the Supreme Court such as Guinn v. US and legislation such as the Voting Rights Act's of 1965 and 1970 that forbid or disallow literacy tests? Seems like a long thread for a topic that appears to be so clear cut.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


That is precisely how companies vote. Shareholders all have votes based on the shares they hold. You are proving yourself to be a profound idiot.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...Poor people vote for more public services
> ...


Wel, since the democrats have won the popular vote in most elections and, according to the right, all democrats do is raise taxes, I guess most Americans favorite taxes. Cause taxe policy is the only factor that influences any one's vote, right?


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 2, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


Voting is a fundamental right and can only be limited for a compelling governmental reason. Enabling Republicans to donore elections is not a compelling reason.


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 2, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


You are proving a deficit in your reading comprehension. Read my post again, concentrating on the "and only one" clause.

Apology accepted.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

Camp said:


> ...Why are so many here unaware or just ignoring the constitutional judgements by the Supreme Court such as Guinn v. US and legislation such as the Voting Rights Act's of 1965 and 1970 that forbid or disallow literacy tests? Seems like a long thread for a topic that appears to be so clear cut.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the challenge here is to debate whether allowing this state of affairs to _continue_ is a good idea.

If that means passing an amended _Voting Rights Act_ or similar, well, then, _that_ is what is needed.

If that means passing a fresh _Constitutional Amendment_ in order to deter such judicial interference, well, then, _that_ is what is needed.

The question before 'the bar' seems to be whether or not such an effort is worthwhile.

We know that it *CAN* be done, in a Constitutionally legal manner, by simply changing the Constitution to suit.

But, of course, just because we (The People) *CAN* do a thing. does not necessarily mean that we *SHOULD* do such a thing.

It is the *DO* or *DON'T-DO* question that occupies us here, rather than whether any present (and overcome-able) barriers are extant at present.

Which opens-up all kinds of sidebars as to ethics and morality and right and wrong and fairness and unfairness and financial wisdom and largess and all the rest.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

Voting is a right.

That won't change.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Voting is a right.
> 
> That won't change.



Restrictions on that right already exist.

The precedent is already there.

The question now before the bar is whether any _additional_ restrictions should be brought into existence.


----------



## Camp (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Voting is a right.
> ...


OK, I agree with your conclusion. I think it means that if we want to, with the proper procedure being followed we can take the vote away from woman, blacks, girls with red hair, anyone who doesn't watch football and make people take test to prove they have some kind of knowledge about something. 
Seriously, this topic was brought into the public realm this week with comments made by Ann Coulter during a FOX NEWS interview and it has become a cause for the robotic followers of Coulter and FOX. A sign of desperation as they see all of their candidates being out polled and beaten by of all people, Bernie Sanders. It must be disheartening to know your best and brightest conseratives are doomed to get their asses kicked by an avowed socialist.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


What you call "the dole" I call helping people who need help

I just wonder why we seem to think that the one percent need help


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Voting is a right.
> ...


Current restrictions are age and being mentally sound

You want to add financial ability to it


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

Camp said:


> ...OK, I agree with your conclusion. I think it means that if we want to, with the proper procedure being followed we can take the vote away from woman, blacks, girls with red hair, anyone who doesn't watch football and make people take test to prove they have some kind of knowledge about something...


True.

But those questions have long-since been answered.

This is a *new* question.

Should Welfare Recipients be allowed to vote to perpetuate their place on The Dole?

New questions call for new discussion and new answers.

No need to revisit the past.



> ...Seriously, this topic was brought into the public realm this week with comments made by Ann Coulter during a FOX NEWS interview and it has become a cause for the robotic followers of Coulter and FOX. A sign of desperation as they see all of their candidates being out polled and beaten by of all people, Bernie Sanders. It must be disheartening to know your best and brightest conseratives are doomed to get their asses kicked by an avowed socialist.


I have no idea what triggered the latest round of debate.

Although, given the 'shellacking' (Obumble's own words) that the Democrats took  in the House, in 2010, and in 2014, and also losing the Senate in 2014, I submit that the only poll that truly matters is the poll taken in the voting booth, and that the last couple of sorties by you folk haven't gone very well for you.

I exclude Obumble's re-election given that it wasn't so much a vote for the Incumbent as it was a vote against Mittens... Mister Forty-Seven Percent.

Had the Pubs run somebody halfway decent against Obumble, they might have taken the White House, as well... a Triple Threat, rather than the present Double.

And... given that Hillary (with sideshows by Bernie and Uncle Joe) are all that you have warming-up in the bullpen, well, I wouldn't count those chickens before they hatch.

But, getting back to the topic at-hand...

It's true that we could, through legal Constitutional means, enfranchise or disenfranchise anybody we want, given the requisite tweaking of the Constitution...

The trouble with your other example is, that nobody really wants to head down that road, in disenfranchising those others..

However, when it comes to chronic Welfare Queens and Kings (those on SNAP, TANF and Medicaid or similar) for protracted periods of time, well....

Allowing them to continue to vote is tantamount to giving them a considerable degree of control over the National Purse Strings...

Something that will lead to National Bankruptcy in the not-too-distant future, should our present trend towards Nanny Statism be allowed to continue...

And, of course, one way to ensure that Nanny Statism does NOT continue, is to take the Welfare Queens and Kings out of the loop, at the voting booth...

Perhaps it's the best way...

But that's up to the Nation at-large to decide, after some dialogue on the subject, assuming that The People want to revisit this aspect of public life and treasury emptying.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Nope...

But any attempt to bar Welfare Recipients from voting would ensure that only fiscally responsible taxpayers are deciding what to do with their own tax dollars...

Otherwise, it's like giving a kid the keys to the candy store...


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> ...What you call "the dole" I call helping people who need help...


Indeed, there is a difference of opinion there.

Temporary help is one thing.

Long-term and chronic dependency and Nanny Statism is quite another.

The former is a lightweight interim accommodation that no honest citizen of goodwill would dream of denying to his fellow countrymen to get them through a tough stretch.

The latter is a way of life and represents a huge drain upon the national treasury and its taxpayers and is productivity and represents a threat to the future of the Nation.



> ...I just wonder why we seem to think that the one percent need help


We don't.

But we're not focused on them at the moment.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



It is more than tax dollars

Politicians decide to go to war. You think poor people shouldn't get to pick representatives that send their kids to war?  
It is the poor kids who do the fighting. We know Trumps kids don't


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 2, 2015)

If the far right reactionaries were tested, more than 70% would fail.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> If the far right reactionaries were tested, more than 70% would fail.


Revisionist history will do that


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> ...Politicians decide to go to war. You think poor people shouldn't get to pick representatives that send their kids to war?
> It is the poor kids who do the fighting. We know Trumps kids don't


Now *THAT* is a reason that I, for one, can buy into, as one for the '_Why we should continue to allow them to vote_' column. Ditto for a great many others, I'll wager, who remember the Era of the Vietnam Draft Dodgers.


----------



## Camp (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > ...OK, I agree with your conclusion. I think it means that if we want to, with the proper procedure being followed we can take the vote away from woman, blacks, girls with red hair, anyone who doesn't watch football and make people take test to prove they have some kind of knowledge about something...
> ...


This is what I identify as the disease of spinicitus. That is when so many spins are believed that conclusions are made purely from spin. Nanny state, welfare kings and queens, national bankruptcy, even something you call Nanny Statism. These are words used to create spins. The accuracy of such terms to defining reality are far from being accurate assessments or factual data to be used in a genuine analysis of what is real and what is made up for propaganda purposes. The idea, for example, that welfare recipients control elections is ridiculous. I would love to see the data on that. How many welfare recipients bother to vote? Lets go a step further and identify what is "welfare". When the Romney 47% thing was going on we were hearing that Social Security folks were really on an entitlement program. Are veterans on an entitlement program when they collect disability or health benefits? So who is going to determine who is on welfare? Is unemployment compensation welfare? Does the killed in action veteran's mom lose her vote because she collects food stamps or medicaid? Imagine that, some old woman who gave up her only son for the country doesn't get to vote because she choose's to eat and go to see a doctor.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

Camp said:


> ...This is what I identify as the disease of spinicitus. That is when so many spins are believed that conclusions are made purely from spin. Nanny state, welfare kings and queens, national bankruptcy, even something you call Nanny Statism. These are words used to create spins...


Indeed. Words define ideas. Ideas can be spun in various ways. Using yet other words. That is the function of language.



> ..The accuracy of such terms to defining reality are far from being accurate assessments or factual data to be used in a genuine analysis of what is real and what is made up for propaganda purposes...


Indeed. But those words - and concern over the ideas which those words conjure - are useful, in convincing The People to revisit the issues and to seek empirical data.



> ...The idea, for example, that welfare recipients control elections is ridiculous...


Indeed. It all depends on the percentage of the population On-the-Dole at any given moment in time.

If a high percentage of the voting population is On-the-Dole, then it is logical to assume that that percentage strongly influences the outcome of elections.

If a low percentage of the voting population is On-the-Dole, then we come closer to your 'ridiculous' scenario.



> ...I would love to see the data on that. How many welfare recipients bother to vote?...


Me too.



> ...Lets go a step further and identify what is "welfare"...


Nope.

No need.

If somebody has formerly paid into the system (through payroll contributions, or through military service, etc.), then they should retain their voting privileges, even if they are getting some form of disability or unemployment or pension entitlement.

To avoid over-complicating the issue, we can safely limit ourselves to long-term or chronically repetitive recipients of SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, or similar State or Local Welfare.

That is a sufficiently substantial chunk of the problem to tackle and to digest as part of any first pass.

The Nation can always tweak that as needed over the course of time, but, first things first.

-------------------------

You realize, of course, that I am playing Devil's Advocate here, do you not?

I half-believe in some of what I"m espousing, and remain unconvinced of the efficacy of other aspects of such tactics.


----------



## Camp (Aug 2, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > ...This is what I identify as the disease of spinicitus. That is when so many spins are believed that conclusions are made purely from spin. Nanny state, welfare kings and queens, national bankruptcy, even something you call Nanny Statism. These are words used to create spins...
> ...


You are headed down a slippery slope. The old woman who lost her only son who died while in the service of his nation has not been addressed. She is to old and or to medically unfit to work. If she is unable to collect medicaid and food assistance she will go hungry and suffer or die from her illnesses. Hence, she will be on these benefits as long as she lives, which would disqualify her from voting. Now lets take another example. A young man is run over by an uninsured motorist and crippled for life. It is the kind of injury that will prevent him from ever have a sustainable living or even be able to care for himself without the help of welfare. At no fault of his own, he has lost his right to vote. He is being told that cell stem research is making great progress in finding a cure or great relief to his suffering. Problem is is that there are voters who want to elect officials who will prevent research because of objections to using cells from zygote or fetus cells. The disabled man will not be allowed to vote because he fits the identity of a person not eligible for voting. His purpose of voting is to push for action that  would help him become able bodied and be able to get off of welfare, but your system will not allow him to work towards that goal.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 2, 2015)

Camp said:


> ...You are headed down a slippery slope...


Possibly.



> ...The old woman... A young man...


People with demonstrable long-term need could certainly be exempted from such voting restrictions, yes?


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 2, 2015)

Camp said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



You tell a very heart wrenching story. Now let’s slide down another slope.

Citizens increasingly decide to join the ranks of the professional poor who are content to live on what the government gives them. It’s not much, but it supplements the untaxed income received from selling drugs and cigarettes.

Illegal immigrants are welcomed by politicians because they swell the voter base that is easily manipulated. That non-citizens cannot legally vote is a joke to them since they are here illegally in the first place. With no voter ID required and states giving them driver licenses anyway, what’s to stop them from voting? They are happy to be here because, “Everything’s free in America!”

Politicians cater to the poor and illegals. It’s easy to spend public money. “Helping” the poor and oppressed keeps politicians in office, and, hey, they are just doing what the people (a.k.a. masses) voted them in to do.

The $18T+ national debt escalates rapidly. How to compensate for this? Why, reduce military expenditures, of course. Now that Iran has agreed to play nice with the world, more guns and stuff aren’t needed. ISIS? They’re just the JV team.

Then comes the economic collapse, followed by the military conquest.

The good news is that it’s 2050 and I’m not around to see it. The bad news? My kids, and yours, are.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> We had this same issue in the late 60s
> 
> 18 year olds could be drafted to risk their lives for their country but could not vote for those who send them
> 
> A basic right of citizens



This is the thing. 

Anyone who is refused the vote will be ignored. Okay, under the US system many people are already ignored. 

Black people for example. 







Black people have increased their share of the vote in the space of 20 years from 11.1 to 11.8%, whereas white people's share has been reduced massively. Hispanics have increased their share from 4.7% to 9.5%, probably due to larger numbers rather than voting. 

Black people are starting to realise that their votes actually matter, to a certain extent, and the more they vote (they're now voting at similar levels to white people, almost) and therefore politicians have to take more note of them.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 3, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


You paint a grim and believable picture.

I am always bemused (and/or amused) by the short-sighted-ness of Nanny-State advocates who cannot see (or do not care) where this is going over a span of decades.

Although I'm not convinced that 'military conquest' is likely in the foreseeable future, I'm far more ready to buy into the 'economic collapse' aspect of your predictions.

Liberals are stereotypically famous for their _Save the Planet_ and _Green Living_ themes and advocacy and practices, looking to the future and trying to change behaviors, because those present-day behaviors may yield a less savory and harsher environment...

It's a pity that they cannot take that same capacity to speculate upon the future, and turn the spotlight upon projections about finances, should present-day behaviors (the growing and sustaining of the Nanny State) continue unchecked, and conclude that those behaviors may yield a less savory and harsher environment.

Brilliance on the one hand (_protection of the environmen_t), and dumb-as-a-box-o-rox stupidity and short-sighted-ness (_lack of financial responsibility_) on the other.

To borrow a line from the stage play _The King and I_: "_*Is... a puzzlemen*_t" .

As usual, The Truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, between Democrat and Republic positions on the subject of Welfare, but neither side has the brains - or, more likely, the courage and the willpower - to cease their pandering and vote-whoring, and do what is needed, to reduce the Welfare Rolls and reverse the trend towards Nanny Statism.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 3, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We had this same issue in the late 60s
> ...


Newsflash...

Black Folk now take a back seat to Hispanics, as the largest Minority Demographic in the Nation.

According to the 2010 US Census,*Hispanics* now account for *16%* of the population, while *Blacks* now account for a mere *12%*.

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Politicians will now begin to pay more attention to Hispanics than to Blacks, whose time as the dominant Minority Demographic has come to an end.

Just as well... after 140+ years, the old minority demographic dominance was getting a little tiresome, anyway. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And Hispanics - and politicians - are absorbing this data and acting upon it at a rapid and accelerating pace.

The Black demographic is yesterday's news - the Hispanic demographic is the wave of the future - enjoy.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 3, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Newsflash...
> 
> Black Folk now take a back seat to Hispanics, as the largest Minority Demographic in the Nation.
> 
> ...



Black people didn't used to vote.





Blacks outvoted whites in 2012 the first time on record CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

This site says that black people turned out in larger numbers, per capita, than white people since 1968. Black people stopped voting. Not totally, but less black people voted. Why? Probably because they didn't feel anyone was listening to them. They've been increasing their vote in recent elections, and with Obama they came out in numbers, why? Because they think Obama listens to them because he's black.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 3, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


How do you get blood from a turnip?

Take away any influence they have in government and then take away any semblance of rights that they are guaranteed.

Or do you actually think that the poor have nothing to lose because that is a rather silly thing to state IMHO.

The way you protect from buying votes from the masses is NOT denying them access to the government - that is blatantly wrong - but rather denying the government the ability to buy those votes.  IOW, we need to deal with the constitution that outlines those governmental powers and responsibilities - not try to allow the elitists to control the government.  That does not end well.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 3, 2015)

Here’s the problem: poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters:

If all income groups had voted evenly, Obama would have beaten McCain 55.2 percent to 42.7 percent, a net gain of 5.3 points relative to what actually happened. So no, poor government program beneficiaries don’t “all vote” or turn out in “massive numbers”.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 3, 2015)

A couple of points.

First, it is entirely possible to be a productive member of society without paying taxes, and do so legally.  What about stay at home parents?  Jobs which are based on something other than monetary recompense?  Despite what some may think, such jobs do exist.  As far as welfare/government assistance goes, that is a difficult case to make.  Not every election will have an effect on those programs.  Not every voter who makes use of such programs will vote for politicians who extend them.  I understand the concept that those getting government assistance will vote for more of the same, but I both question how it would be implemented (what constitutes assistance?  Do those who work and pay taxes yet also receive some form of assistance get to vote?  Does this affect all elections of only certain ones? etc. etc.) and whether there's any chance it would pass constitutional muster.

I think that limiting rights should be difficult, not something done because a person doesn't like the current administration or policies of government.  Not enough people agree with me to vote the candidates I want into office, therefore I should find a way to change the voting rules so those who agree with me are casting the majority of votes?  Taking away the voting rights of people to get the 'proper' candidates into government?  I can't get behind that, and as FA_Q2 said earlier, it's almost inevitably going to lead to the 'wrong' people getting into power and taking my own right to vote away at some point.

I'm also curious, if this is about 'the dole', about those who receive assistance or handouts voting to continue and expand those programs, how could such a change ever happen?  If there are so many voting to keep their programs intact and expanded, wouldn't those same people vote against any change to voting rights promoted here?  So wouldn't that require this change be made without a vote?  Would this be implemented by executive order, would congress enact it (thereby proving they are not beholden to the so-called leeches, making the change itself pointless)?  It seems to be a bit of a paradox.  Either the people some of you are concerned about voting would have to vote away their own right to vote, or the politicians you are concerned are pandering to those voters would have to enact legislation which would go against the interests of those voters, showing that the politicians do not simply pander to them, contradicting the reason for the change in the first place.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 3, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> A couple of points.
> 
> *First, it is entirely possible to be a productive member of society without paying taxes, and do so legally.  What about stay at home parents?  Jobs which are based on something other than monetary recompense?  Despite what some may think, such jobs do exist.*  As far as welfare/government assistance goes, that is a difficult case to make.  Not every election will have an effect on those programs.  Not every voter who makes use of such programs will vote for politicians who extend them.  I understand the concept that those getting government assistance will vote for more of the same, but I both question how it would be implemented (what constitutes assistance?  Do those who work and pay taxes yet also receive some form of assistance get to vote?  Does this affect all elections of only certain ones? etc. etc.) and whether there's any chance it would pass constitutional muster.
> 
> ...


Another very good point.

Worth is NOT inexorably tied to material gains.  I should have thought of that 

As for your last paragraph, the ability to enact such measures is not necessarily ties to the ability to do so.  As this is unlikely, it is more of an intellectual exercise than a reflection on weather or not such changes can be created through current, normal channels.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 3, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Here’s the problem: poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters:
> 
> If all income groups had voted evenly, Obama would have beaten McCain 55.2 percent to 42.7 percent, a net gain of 5.3 points relative to what actually happened. So no, poor government program beneficiaries don’t “all vote” or turn out in “massive numbers”.


Well, 13% is 13%... and can swing an election for the wrong reasons...yes?


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 4, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Here’s the problem: poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters:
> ...


First of all you illiterate fuck, only 6% of the voters were earning less than $15,000.00, not 13%..  Not all are on welfare.  Second, who are you to say it is for the "wrong reasons"?  The wrong reason to vote for a President is when he promises tax cuts; when he promises to end reproductive freedom; when he promises to repeal a law that provides health care to millions; when he promises to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; when he promises to reject an agreement with Iran when that rejection may lead to war.  Those are folks voting for the wrong reason.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 4, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ...First of all you illiterate fuck...


Calm yourself, Princess, or you'll soil your panties...



> ...only 6% of the voters were earning less than $15,000.00, not 13%...


I wasn't the one who served-up the 13% figure, if you'll calm yourself long enough to go back and look, I was merely responding to it.

Frankly, I don't care whether it's 13% or 6% - the observation stands.



> ...Not all are on welfare...


My own participation here has been focused upon those who *ARE* on welfare (SNAP, TANF and/or Medicaid).

You can do what you like with the rest; they aren't a factor in the point I was making, about considering the restricting of the vote to those *NOT* on welfare.



> ...Second, who are you to say it is for the "wrong reasons"?...


I am me.

An American citizen.

Positing that Welfare Queens and Kings are likely to vote for the candidate(s) most likely to sustain them in their benefits and to perpetuate and expand Nanny Statism.

Positing that such an approach is financially unhealthy and, societally, and at-large, on the macro level, unhealthy for the future of the Republic and its People.

And, if the above two criteria are found to be largely true, then, in turn, positing that this constitutes voting for the wrong reasons.

Why?

Who else do I have to be, to offer-up a Citizen's Opinion in such matters?

And, while we're at it, who are you, to attempt to suppress my opinion?



> ...The wrong reason to vote for a President is when he promises...


Non sequitur.

But thank you for your feedback.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 4, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ...First of all you illiterate fuck...
> ...


Had you been able to understand the English language, which still seems to puzzle you, the 13% number you suggested could have "swung" the election were not voters. Those who make less than 15k constituted only 6% of those voting.  Poor people vote far less than those in the middle class and upper class.  Many people now on MA actually work and pay taxes.  Many who receive food stamps work and pay taxes.  Some are the wives and children of servicemen.  So, while hubby is off risking his life for his nation, you would prevent wifey from voting.  Frankly, she deserves a vote more than you do.  

You single out poor people, a disproportionate number of whom are black, for being denied a basic, human right; the right to participate in their own governance.  You have ignored that fact that there are other people who vote from pure self interest.  You, for example, vote for those who will lower your taxes by not providing assistance to anyone less fortunate than you.  You have identified only one group and falsely claimed, without any evidence to support it, that they vote solely for candidates that will provide them with continued or more government assistance.  As for suppressing your opinion, you mistake pointing out the idiocy of what you propose for suppressing it.  You are no less free to express your stupid ideas now, after I have destroyed them, than you were when you first decided to demonstrate to those who read this message board what a fucking moron you are.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 4, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ...Had you been able to understand the English language, which still seems to puzzle you, the 13% number you suggested could have "swung" the election were not voters. Those who make less than 15k constituted only 6% of those voting...


13%... 6%... whatever... it's more than a percentage-point, and therefore eligible for scrutiny.



> ...Poor people vote far less than those in the middle class and upper class...


Doesn't matter. Nobody should be allowed to vote for a candidate because they promise to sustain and expand Nanny State benefits.



> ...Many people now on MA actually work and pay taxes.  Many who receive food stamps work and pay taxes.  Some are the wives and children of servicemen.  So, while hubby is off risking his life for his nation, you would prevent wifey from voting.  Frankly, she deserves a vote more than you do...


I have long-since stated that only Chronic Layabouts would qualify. Folks on long-term disability, the working poor, families of service-folk, etc., would not be thus barred.



> ...You single out poor people...


I single-out Perpetual Welfare Receivers, whom I (and a great many other Americans) do not want voting for a candidate simply because the candidate promises to retain and even expand their benefits.



> ...a disproportionate number of whom are black...


The law is color blind.

Don't you Liberals make a great show of telling the rest of us that the largest number of folks on Food Stamps, etc., are actually White?

Well, then, this affects Whites even more than it affects Blacks, yes?

Or so logic would suggest.

Epic Fail.



> ...for being denied a basic, human right; the right to participate in their own governance...


Voting is not a basic human right.

It is a political right.

Political rights are what The People say they are.

And, if W_e The People_ say that those who are On-the-Dole are not to be entrusted with the vote, for fear that they will vote for Vote-Panders and Vote-Whores who promise to give them free bread and circuses, well, then, they are not to be entrusted with that political right, until they get their asses *OFF* the Dole, yes?



> ...You have ignored that fact that there are other people who vote from pure self interest...


Yes. But they are Net Contributors to the System, not Net Drainers.



> ...As for suppressing your opinion, you mistake pointing out the idiocy of what you propose for suppressing it.  You are no less free to express your stupid ideas now, after I have destroyed them, than you were when you first decided to demonstrate to those who read this message board what a fucking moron you are.


Gotta love this Self-Declared Victory shit from the youngsters. Isn't it cute? Baby's first foul-mouthed delusional non-victory. Sumfin' to put in the Baby Book. Soooo proud!


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 4, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


You seem to like numbers, so let's take a look at a few real numbers. (Here's a tip: Whenever you see a percentage, dig around to understand what it really means. Percentages can be very misleading.)

In 2009 (recent enough for this discussion), the US Census Bureau shows 84,238,000 people with an annual income of less than $10,000. There were 11,187,000 people listed as black, 13.3% of the total that earned less than $10K. This is about the same percentage in the general population, so your "disproportionate number of whom are black"  assertion is inaccurate.

The same source puts the number of adults at 242,168,000. This means that those earning less $10K comprise 34% of the voting population. At the other end of the spectrum, those earning $150K or more total 5,024,000, or 2.1% of eligible voters. They are well outnumbered by the under $10K folks. But how many of each group really head to the polls? Glad you asked:



It would only take 6% of the under $10K voters to turnout to equal the total number over $150K voters if ALL of the higher income folks turned out. With presidential year under $10K turnout about 45%, it's clear that the low income voters are the dominant force compared to the highest income earners.

The problem with the "everyone gets one vote, and only one vote" system is painfully clear for anyone willing to acknowledge the truth. Unfortunately, this problem is even worse than I initially thought.

Links used in this analysis: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0705.pdf
Why the Voting Gap Matters Demos


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 4, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ...Had you been able to understand the English language, which still seems to puzzle you, the 13% number you suggested could have "swung" the election were not voters. Those who make less than 15k constituted only 6% of those voting...
> ...



I wonder about the sentence I put in bold.  You think that why a person votes for a candidate should be a determining factor in whether they vote?  OK, let's go with that.  How do you determine why someone votes for a candidate?  Your solution is to assume that anyone who is on welfare of whichever sort you decide will be voting based on continuation or expansion of those benefits, and therefore cannot vote.  However, this both disenfranchises welfare recipients who vote for reasons other than extending their benefits and ignores non-welfare recipients who vote based on extending or expanding government benefits they may receive.  You have countered this last part by pointing out that those you wish to strip of their voting rights are 'Net Drainers' and those who you would allow to retain voting rights are 'Net Contributors'.  You make this argument without defining those terms nor providing any evidence that it is true.

This kind of vague argument could easily lead to all kinds of voting restrictions.  If you make less than a certain amount, you are a Net Drainer and so cannot vote.  If you pay less than a certain amount in federal taxes, Net Drainer and cannot vote.  Not married, no children?  Net Drainer, cannot vote.  

As I pointed out previously, making money is not the only indication that someone works, nor is employment the only way someone can be considered contributing to society.  What your argument appears to be is one in which you would restrict the voting rights of people who vote for reasons you disapprove of.  That is not a strong argument for restricting rights.  Rather than trying to do so, perhaps the more ethical solution would be to try and educate people and get them to vote for candidates you feel are superior.

And again, also pointed out earlier, if enough of the people feel that voting for bread and circuses is a problem, instead of restricting voting rights, why don't those people simply vote better candidates into office?


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 4, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?
> ...


Speaking of civics lessons, have you ever had one?  Advocating testing as a means of access to franchise has been roundly dismissed.  Why would you erode a citizen's right to vote?


----------



## Dante (Aug 4, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> VIDEO Americans Can t Name First Amendment Rights MRCTV



New citizens usually can. Why not restrict voting based on how long one has been a lazy American?


----------



## Dante (Aug 4, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


better question is why not? If it was good enough for the founding generation people like you genuflect before...


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 4, 2015)

Dante said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Founding generation?


----------



## Dante (Aug 4, 2015)

Nosmo King


Nosmo King said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Yeah, you know...the people who founded the USA: the people who declared independence, and the people who framed the Constitution, and mostly the people who ratified the Constitution giving it the power of law.


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 4, 2015)

Dante said:


> Nosmo King
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> ...


Ah!  The folks who thoughts,Avery was just fine, the vote shouldberestricted to white male property owners and believed that the musket was the ultimate in weaponry?

But they also had just enough forethought when drafting the constitution to allow for amendments


----------



## Dante (Aug 4, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King
> ...



Why should this generation have to use the amendment process? Why not initiate a new form of government?


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> ...You think that why a person votes for a candidate should be a determining factor in whether they vote?...


No. Only whether they are overly-susceptible to voting to sustain or expand Nanny Statism.



> ...Your solution is to assume that anyone who is on welfare of whichever sort you decide will be voting based on continuation or expansion of those benefits, and therefore cannot vote...


Incorrect.

Modify that to read "...anyone who is a Chronic Layabout (non-disabled and other non-exempted) will be voting based on..." and you've got it.



> ...However, this both disenfranchises welfare recipients who vote for reasons other than extending their benefits and ignores non-welfare recipients who vote based on extending or expanding government benefits they may receive...


Correct. Chronic Layabouts are not to be trusted. Some may be trustworthy. Most will not be. Unfortunately, further granularity of vetting or filtering would not be practicable, so, we would lose the handful of trustworthy ones along with the vast numbers of untrustworthy ones, in the context of vote participation. To make omelettes, ya gotta break a few eggs.



> ...You have countered this last part by pointing out that those you wish to strip of their voting rights are 'Net Drainers' and those who you would allow to retain voting rights are 'Net Contributors'.  You make this argument without defining those terms nor providing any evidence that it is true...


Mere detail, to be worked out easily enough, on the outside chance that the idea would ever actually gain traction on the national stage.

For now, as a placeholder, we could easily say that the criteria for exclusion from voting are: (1) not belonging to an exempted category of welfare recipient, (2) presently on the Dole, (3) on the Dole for X number of weeks or months or years, (4) able-bodied, (5) no other visible source of income and (6) no serious job-search interaction with the State.



> ...This kind of vague argument could easily lead to all kinds of voting restrictions.  If you make less than a certain amount, you are a Net Drainer and so cannot vote.  If you pay less than a certain amount in federal taxes, Net Drainer and cannot vote.  Not married, no children?  Net Drainer, cannot vote...


All covered in the placeholder list (1) through (6) above.



> ...As I pointed out previously, making money is not the only indication that someone works, nor is employment the only way someone can be considered contributing to society...


Indeed. But we're not talking about the soft-and-fuzzies here. We're talking about whether someone is sucking on the Public Teat, and therefore has a Conflict of Interest and is therefore not trustworthy, to decide on candidates and matters focused upon sustaining and replenishing and perpetuating that Fountain of Goodies at taxpayer expense.



> ...What your argument appears to be is one in which you would restrict the voting rights of people who vote for reasons you disapprove of...


No.

My argument advocates restricting voting privileges for people who have a conflict of interests and will almost automatically vote to perpetuate and expand the Nanny State.

My argument advocates for an end to the Slow Financial Suicide that we are currently in the process of committing and that our children and grandchildren will curse us for.



> ...That is not a strong argument for restricting rights...


Eliminating a Conflict of Interest on a vast national scale and freeing us to begin dismantling the Nanny State before it is too late, is a marvelous argument for such an approach.



> ...Rather than trying to do so, perhaps the more ethical solution would be to try and educate people and get them to vote for candidates you feel are superior...


If you are giving-out Gubmint Freebies and you try to educate people NOT to put their hand-out for those Freebies, the Freebie-Receivers are going to laugh at you. No thanks.



> ...And again, also pointed out earlier, if enough of the people feel that voting for bread and circuses is a problem, instead of restricting voting rights, why don't those people simply vote better candidates into office?


The number of Sane People - who oppose the cultivation and growth of a Nanny State - represents a large segment of the population.

The number of Deluded People - who think we can sustain a Nanny State in perpetuity - when added to the Freebie Recipients - usually outnumber the Sane People.

The only way to get a handle on the Nanny State is to remove the Conflict of Interest - the Freebie Recipients - from the equation.

That way, only Financial Stakeholders - both Sane People and Deluded People - are engaged in examining Needs and Resources and reaching more compromises and making Intelligent and Responsible Decisions, rather than our present endless cycle of Touchy-Feely Feel-Good Voting, fueled by Vote Panderers and Vote Whores playing to the poor.

The Nanny State is ultimately unsustainable and should be dismantled - even if it requires a generation or two or three to complete the process.

There is no other way to stop that juggernaut and Financial Train Wreck, other than to prevent Freebie Receivers from voting to give themselves more Freebies, on other people's dimes.

Oh, we can yammer-on for hours or days or months or years, about raising folks out of poverty, and getting them off The Dole, but, in truth, we've been at it for 50 years - since LBJ's infamous War on Poverty began - and we're in worse shape now (as measured by the number of folks on The Dole) than back then - by an order of magnitude.

It ain't workin'.

Just as we we eventually had to admit to ourselves that it was time to end the 50-year-long embargo of Cuba...

It's time to admit that we've lost the War on Poverty...

And to take another approach...

Nanny-Statism isn't the answer.

And, if true, then we must act, sometime soon, to reverse that trend.

There is no other way to reverse that trend, than to prevent Freebie Recipients from voting to give themselves more Freebies on somebody else's dime.

Which, in turn, translates to restricting the vote, for Chronic Layabouts.

Don't kill the Messenger here... I merely serve-up the premise and the logic behind it... which, in turn, will have to stand or fall, upon its own merits.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 4, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > ...You think that why a person votes for a candidate should be a determining factor in whether they vote?...
> ...



I'm not killing the messenger.  I'm opposing the message.  

Your premise, when boiled down, is that income is the major determining factor in 'good' voting.  I reject that premise.

I'll point out that ending the embargo of Cuba didn't involve stripping anyone of their voting rights.

I'll also point out that your idea seems to be antithetical to the basic premise of our system of government; that of representation.  You wish to strip people of that representation based on your opinion of their voting habits.  Our history is generally one of granting voting rights to more people, not taking them away from people.  Yet you prefer stripping that representation away.

I assume you have seen various posters here make statements about a particular political party being dangerous for the country, sending us into disaster, and other similar claims.  I wonder, do you see a significant difference between those people calling for members of the political party they think is destroying the nation having their voting rights stripped and you calling for those you consider drainers having their rights taken away?


----------



## Dante (Aug 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Since past generations did not stick with how the framers viewed representation, how can you say this generation must stick with the recent ones of the past? Appealing to an authority that has to ignore the whole history...look at one where there is a progression of change. That's not an argument for why this generation has to follow that example or progression.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> ...I'm not killing the messenger.  I'm opposing the message...


Noted.



> ...Your premise, when boiled down, is that income is the major determining factor in 'good' voting.  I reject that premise...


My premise is that Chronic Layabouts should not have a say in fashioning or perpetuating Nanny Statism.



> ...I'll point out that ending the embargo of Cuba didn't involve stripping anyone of their voting rights...


True. Also irrelevant. It was served-up merely as an example of how a decades-long approach did not work, ultimately, and had to be set aside



> ...I'll also point out that your idea seems to be antithetical to the basic premise of our system of government; that of representation.  You wish to strip people of that representation based on your opinion of their voting habits.  Our history is generally one of granting voting rights to more people, not taking them away from people.  Yet you prefer stripping that representation away...


Prefer? No. Wondering if it has become necessary? Yes. If it's a choice between perpetuating a Nanny State or disenfranchising Welfare Queens and Kings until they get off the Dole and back onto the Voter Lists, well, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, if that came to pass.



> ...I assume you have seen various posters here make statements about a particular political party being dangerous for the country, sending us into disaster, and other similar claims.  I wonder, do you see a significant difference between those people calling for members of the political party they think is destroying the nation having their voting rights stripped and you calling for those you consider drainers having their rights taken away?


Oh, vast differences. I hold a mix of Conservative, Liberal and (mostly) Centrist beliefs and preferences; this is merely my Conservative Side getting some fresh air, and in a good cause; advancing the discussion about the Nanny State and what it will take to reverse direction on that slippery slope. Drastic circumstances can trigger drastic countermeasures, when matters of survival and long-term health and well-being are at stake. Is the advance of the Nanny State such a circumstance? Perhaps. We'll let The People decide.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 4, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > ...I'm not killing the messenger.  I'm opposing the message...
> ...



What are the vast differences you see?  You are calling for taking away the voting rights of those you see as causing harm to the country by how they vote.  How is that different from, let's say, someone calling for Democrats or Republicans to lose voting rights because they believe either of those parties is causing harm to the country?  Or someone calling for Muslims to be denied the vote because we are 'at war with Islam'?

Once again, if enough of the people feel that the politicians being voted into office are pandering to the Dolists, why don't those people vote better representatives into office?  If not enough people agree, then aren't you just trying to game the system to get what you consider the right candidates elected?

And if we are to remove voting rights from one particular group of people now, what stops another group from being denied the right to vote later?  At some point, you may well find yourself in a group denied the right to vote because you don't fit into someone's idea of a worthy voter.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 4, 2015)

Dante said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



I'm sorry, what?  What ignoring of history did I do?  The historical trend in this country, so far as I'm aware, is of granting voting rights rather than removing them.  That doesn't mean it can't be done.  Nor is it the sole basis for my argument.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> ...What are the vast differences you see?...


True Conservatives are closer to being one-trick-ponies or towing a single party line. I'm a Cafeteria type. I borrow from both sides, and the middle. You're merely catching me taking my Conservative side out for a walk and a poop.



> ...You are calling for taking away the voting rights of those you see as causing harm to the country by how they vote...


Correct.



> ...How is that different from, let's say, someone calling for Democrats or Republicans to lose voting rights because they believe either of those parties is causing harm to the country?  Or someone calling for Muslims to be denied the vote because we are 'at war with Islam'?...


None of those other examples represent Chronic Layabouts voting themselves continued Layabout Benefits.



> ...Once again, if enough of the people feel that the politicians being voted into office are pandering to the Dolists, why don't those people vote better representatives into office?  If not enough people agree, then aren't you just trying to game the system to get what you consider the right candidates elected?...


Yep. And that's what Public Dialogue is all about. To advance ideas to the discussion stage and to get the public talking about them, for better or worse.



> ...And if we are to remove voting rights from one particular group of people now, what stops another group from being denied the right to vote later?  At some point, you may well find yourself in a group denied the right to vote because you don't fit into someone's idea of a worthy voter.


Thank you, Pastor Niemoller.

If I'm voting for candidates simply to allow myself to stay at home and not to work and to suck off the State Teat, well, I wouldn't blame you for excluding me, as well.


----------



## Dante (Aug 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I'm sorry, what?  What ignoring of history did I do?  The historical trend in this country, so far as I'm aware, is of granting voting rights rather than removing them.  That doesn't mean it can't be done.  Nor is it the sole basis for my argument.



Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is to them. Many of them were of the opinion that future generations should not be tied to the past as strictly as you would have us be.

This reminds me of people who don't fully grasp what Joseph Campbell said about religion and science:
_“There's no real conflict between science and religion ... What is in conflict is the science of 2000 BC ... and the science of the 20th century AD.” _​
Regarding the politics and ideologies of the 18th and 21st centuries, I'd say we have a conflict between the ideological and philosophical beliefs of 18th century men and the experiences of 21st century men and women.

I believe many of the most well known of the founding generation would laugh at our childish and ridiculous adoration and worship of them and their words. They were far too liberal and mature to be the clay-footed idols we worship today


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 5, 2015)

Dante said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, what?  What ignoring of history did I do?  The historical trend in this country, so far as I'm aware, is of granting voting rights rather than removing them.  That doesn't mean it can't be done.  Nor is it the sole basis for my argument.
> ...



I in no way appealed to the founders.  In fact, if anything, I was pointing out how the laws in this country have progressed after the founding.  The trend of granting voting rights would be allowing blacks to vote, or women, things well after the founding of the country.  I have never been a fan of appealing to what the founders would think of today's society nor of assuming one knows how they all thought, or that they even agreed on any given subject.  I don't know where you get an appeal to the founders from my bringing up changes to voting rights over the course of the country's history.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Why should knowing first amendment rights have anything to do with you knowing which candidate best represents your interests and points of view?










It demonstrates the bare minimum of knowledge of the country and the laws that govern it.  If you don't know you how the 1st Amendment affects you you might be stupid enough to vote for the guy that wants to limit it.


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 5, 2015)

There seems to be an eagerness to test the electorate by the Right Wing.  This testing is to ensure that the voters tend to agree with them on the issues.

There is a plague of gun violence in this country.  Should gun ownership be subjected to a test to ensure the mental and emotional competence of those gun owners?

The Right Wing would scream NO! as such testing would be an infringement on gun rights.

Anyone else see any irony in that?  Guns for everyone, while the vote should be restricted?


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 5, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


If the poor have such profound political power, they sure do a piss poor job of exercising it.  You act as if there is this consistent group of folks on some form of assistance that never change.  That is bullshit.  People go on and off different forms to assistance.  Someone may be fully employed for ten years, laid off and receiving Unemployment, food stamps, medical assistance and even some welfare and you would make them ineligible to vote for the time period they are "not contributing?  What you cannot explain is how any of this is administered. Most states hold two elections per year, sometimes more.  What will the huge bureaucracy that will have to review the eligibility to vote of the 200 million Americans of voting age?   If one is gainfully employed from Jan to May but out of work from May to November, do they vote in the primary but not the General?  Who decides when one is contributing enough to vote?  Who pays for the huge influx of Court cases that will be filed to challenge these determinations?  Voting is a fundamental right in this country.  It can be infringed, but only after Due Process and not in any way that violates equal protection.  You talk above about income levels.  Are we basing voting on your income or being dependent on the government?  If you earn only 10 k a year but are living on savings or inheritance or a lottery award or simply because you live in the country and are self sufficient, do you get to vote?  If you are a stay at home mom, do you vote?  What if you depended on a husband to support you and he dies and your only recourse if welfare and food stamps for your family until you can obtain skills to work?  Getting past the wholly Un-American notion that voting should be restricted based on wealth or income or receipt of government assistance, you have not offered any explanation as to how such a system would be administered or considered the astronomical cost of doing so in a manner that will not prevent eligible folks from voting.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 5, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> There seems to be an eagerness to test the electorate by the Right Wing.  This testing is to ensure that the voters tend to agree with them on the issues...


The objection is not based upon political opposition.

The objection is based upon fiscal responsibility and sustainability of Nanny State benefits, and related conflicts of interest, and mandatory recusal.



> ...There is a plague of gun violence in this country.  Should gun ownership be subjected to a test to ensure the mental and emotional competence of those gun owners?...


Absolutely.

1. completion of a periodic physical
2. completion of a periodic psych eval
3. completion of a periodic background check
4. mandatory licensing of owners
5. mandatory registration of each and every firearm
6. national standards for sale, transfer, disposal, etc., of firearms
7. national database with bidirectional feed to all of Obama's 57 States to ensure compliance
8. penalties a couple of notches shy of crucifixion for violations



> ...The Right Wing would scream NO! as such testing would be an infringement on gun rights. Anyone else see any irony in that?  Guns for everyone, while the vote should be restricted?


Gun owners are not voting to suck umpteen billions of dollars out of the Treasury in order to sit home and not work, at the expense of others


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 5, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> 1. completion of a periodic physical
> 2. completion of a periodic psych eval
> ...



I trust you're being sarcastic.

1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 5, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely.
> ...


[/QUOTE]
The constitutional rights of citizens are not of great concern to him.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 5, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> There is a plague of gun violence in this country.



Nope.  There is a plague of human violence in this country.  Dispose of the thugs, lock up the crazies, and you will solve 90% of the problem.

There is a constitutional right to possess firearms.  There is no such guarantee of the right to vote.  Conflating the two is as error.


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 5, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely.
> ...


Should we amend the Constitution to compensate?


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 5, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Au contraire... the Constitutional rights of citizens are *very* important to me... but we already limit voting in some aspects... this is just another aspect.

And it prevents the United States from committing financial suicide by reversing the trend towards unsustainable Nanny Statism. Win-Win.


----------



## Nosmo King (Aug 5, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be an eagerness to test the electorate by the Right Wing.  This testing is to ensure that the voters tend to agree with them on the issues...
> ...


The elderly, the infirmed are just too lazy to find work?  Is that your view of who gets public assistance?  Are you sure, or are you subject to make an argument based on anecdote?


----------



## Kondor3 (Aug 5, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> ...The elderly, the infirmed are just too lazy to find work? Is that your view of who gets public assistance?  Are you sure, or are you subject to make an argument based on anecdote?


Nope. You're coming into this sequence late in the game. Earlier posts referenced Chronic Layabouts as those to be 'recused' from voting due to conflicts of interest, with good provision for Exempt Categories of SNAP-TANF-Medicaid-Similar recipients, leaving their voting rights intact.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 5, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Knock yerself out.


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 5, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


I made a general suggestion that those paying more to support our government should have more of a say in how it's run than those who pay less or don't pay at all. However, I did think about it enough to propose what I feel is an equitable and implementable system. You may have not had time to review all of my posts so I'll summarize.

People are qualified to vote in any given year by the taxes paid in the previous year. Taxes include federal income tax and social insurance taxes. A percentage of the average total tax paid per person (all taxes collected divided by the number of tax payers) is used to determine how much of a vote a person gets. I used 50% of the average tax paid to qualify for 1 vote (the most any one person can have), but it could be any percentage. If a person pays less than this target, they get a fraction of a vote rounded up to the nearest tenth. So, paying .43% of target gets a person .5 of a vote. Note that if a person works at all and pays social security tax, he/she would get .1 vote. They're working, they're trying, they're voting.

Got lucky and hit the Lotto? Guess, what - you're paying income taxes and so you're voting.

The data to determine who votes and at what level is already in the IRS database. It should be easy to crunch the numbers if the system is not hacked by China or the folks who set up the Obamacare exchanges are not involved. Getting paid under the table and not paying taxes? Making money from illegal activities? So sorry, you are not helping to pay the country's expenses, so no vote.

As Kondor3 said, there is no fundamental right to vote. The people in charge (us) determine who has the privilege of voting. I feel it makes more sense to let people vote in a manner that is somewhat commensurate with their contribution.

Again, consider the voting system used by companies: one share gets one vote. If you have 1,000 shares, you get 1,000 votes. It's ludicrous to give a shareholder with an investment of 1,000 shares and a shareholder with 10 shares one vote each. They have a different stake, they should have a different number of votes. My proposal does not go to this extreme with political voting because the super rich would have way too much power. I think my proposal is fair and totally American. Something like it should be implemented to improve the quality of the electorate before the entire country suffers more harm.

God bless America.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 5, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...



Perhaps, if a country were a business, your analogy with shareholders would make more sense.  However, as a country most certainly is not a business, it falls flat.

As has been pointed out already in this thread, how much money one makes is not a good indicator of whether a person is a productive member of society.  You yourself have given the example of a lottery winner.  Somehow, in your mind, the luck of winning the lottery equates to a person deserving a vote in how the country is run, whereas someone without that luck does not.  So if, say, a homeless veteran, who has fought and perhaps been injured for the country in the past, wants to vote, they get nothing.  Someone who's been living off of welfare who happens to get lucky with a lottery ticket, on the other hand, is worthy of a full representative voice.  And this is the proposal you call fair and totally American?

This idea that money equates to contribution to society, and the greater the amount of money, the greater the contribution, is ridiculous.  It is possible to be rich and little more than a leech on society, it is possible to be poor and help people all around you.  Stay at home parents have no income and would have no vote in your system.  Bernie Madoff, on the other hand, would have had a full vote until his conviction.


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 5, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


Money is not an indicator of how much of a contributor a person is to society. The amount a person pays in taxes, however, is a direct, objective measure of how much financial support the person supplies to America.

I did not initiate the example of a lottery winner. I merely responded to one of the scenarios paddymurphy suggested.

Many people choose to be social workers, forgoing higher salaries they could enjoy in other professions in order to serve others. More power to them. However, they are working, earning a salary, and paying taxes. Even at their modest salary, it would be easy to select the percentage that gives them one full vote, as they should have. My objection is to giving people who have the ability to work, but don't and are living off the dole, the ability to vote for politicians who make their parasitic way of life possible.

Let's consider your stay at home parent. Are you saying one person stays home and the spouse works? If so, a joint return is filed, each votes based on where the taxes paid divided by two puts them. Is this a single parent who chooses to stay at home to raise the kid(s)? If they pay no taxes, then they would not get a vote. If they don't have savings or others helping them financially, perhaps them are depending on the generosity of the government (us) to live. Not giving them a vote is fair since we are the ones paying taxes. Allowing those that get money without paying into the system to influence how much assistance money they get is the road to serfdom.

My proposal is quintessentially American. Work for what you get. Pay your taxes, vote your conscience. Don't complain when working people, through the government, give you assistance when you experience hard times. Say, "Thank you." and try to better yourself.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 5, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...



I notice you ignored my hypothetical about a homeless veteran.  Someone who doesn't pay taxes, maybe is on some sort of assistance, but fought and perhaps was seriously injured for the country, yet you'd take away their right to vote.

It seems that for some of you voting and representation are entirely about money.  I find that as sad as someone voting simply to receive more government assistance.

Why not look at reform in welfare programs rather than disenfranchising other American citizens?


----------



## Truth2Know (Aug 5, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


We could look at hypothetical situations ad infinitum and it would not change the basic argument. My answer to this special case, though, is that I appreciate what the homeless veteran did. However, the veteran was merely performing a job of their choosing. While doing it, pay was received, taxes paid, and the service person voted. Now they are discharged, have PTSD, and are homeless and jobless. No taxes paid, no vote. The VA should be taking care of this person. Why in the world is Wounded Warriors needed anyway? Don't we take care of our own?

Reforms of VA practices and other welfare programs are needed. These reforms should be undertaken by politicians elected by compassionate, working/tax paying Americans. They are in the best position to make the tough decisions that benefit all Americans.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 5, 2015)

Truth2Know said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Truth2Know said:
> ...



Well clearly you consider money the only important consideration when it comes to deciding the course of the nation.  I disagree with that.  I'm glad that, for now, money is not a deciding factor in who can or cannot vote.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 5, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > There is a plague of gun violence in this country.
> ...


At least you're consistent at being wrong:

"Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."

_Reynolds v. Sims _

“Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.”

_Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections_

There is in fact a fundamental right to vote.


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 5, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




Fine, so why not provide the education on laws and democratic process and training needed so people have a FULLY INFORMED vote. If people like my coworkers don't know the difference between state laws and federal laws, and what is required to change a bad law, that makes a difference in voting! Some things DO need to be taught as part of exercising voting and other democratic rights.

C_Clayton_Jones
You can always claim gun rights under the Constitution.
But with that comes knowledge of the laws, such as due process, that need to be followed, not violated!
People need gun safety training that goes hand in hand, the rights with the responsibilities, to be lawful.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 6, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...



"Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."

Reynolds v Sims concerned the lack of reapportionment in Alabama over a 60 year period.  The decision conferred no "right-to-vote."

“Our cases demonstrate that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment restrains the States from fixing voter qualifications which invidiously discriminate.”

The issue was the "invidious" nature of the tax.  The Equal Protection clause does not confer a general right to vote, nor does it preclude all requirements in order to exercise the privilege.


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 6, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Dear Billy_Kinetta 
And again, the Constitution guarantees the Right to Bear Arms,
but someone who knows how to use an automatic rifle is not going to be equal with someone who doesn't know how to shoot a gun.

The Constitution guarantees the right to counsel, but someone armed with knowledge and experience with the laws, or has money to buy the best lawyers, is not going to be equal with someone without the same.

Do you get it now???

You can argue about the rights we have by law,
but if we don't have means of enforcement and defense
we are not going to be equally protected.

That's why we have bullying going on in courts and legislatures and media. Whoever grabs ground first, and puts the other side on defense, has unequal advantage so people are not protected equally.

If we based decisions on consensus, and rulings did not stand at all unless people agreed, then we might have a chance at equality because the smallest no would still have equal weight as the majority.

There is more to the right to defense, voting, and equal protection of the laws. We have to respect the equal right to consent and dissent for all people, or our votes mean nothing if bigger interests can buy out the process and overrule and override all other input from representation.

Voting is not enough.  I agree we need to defend that, I'm saying we need to change the entire dynamic around voting and citizen participation in govt to protect our interests equally. Voting is only one part of that, we need to do a lot more!!!


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Aug 6, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Billy_Kinetta
> And again, the Constitution guarantees the Right to Bear Arms,
> but someone who knows how to use an automatic rifle is not going to be equal with someone who doesn't know how to shoot a gun.
> 
> ...



Equal does not mean same.

My concern is that the Constitution is written in stone.  It should be taught at all grade levels and is the law of the land that must be followed to the letter if the Republic is to survive.

We are not a nation of simple consensus.  If we were the chances that slavery would have survived increase.  We are a nation of law.  There is a process to make changes.  It was intentionally made difficult.  Legislation and executive order cannot legally modify the Constitution.

As to equality, yes all people are born equal, and remain equal before the law, but do not remain equal in terms of intelligence, talent, or personal drive and ambition.  An educated, moral man is certainly superior to an uneducated, immoral one.

Remember the Founders were also highly educated white, rich elites.  The 1% of their time.


----------



## Dante (Aug 6, 2015)

Montrovant


Montrovant said:


> ...
> I'll also point out that your idea seems to be antithetical to the basic premise of our system of government; that of representation.  You wish to strip people of that representation based on your opinion of their voting habits.  Our history is generally one of granting voting rights to more people, not taking them away from people.  Yet you prefer stripping that representation away.
> ...





Dante said:


> Since past generations did not stick with how the framers viewed representation, how can you say this generation must stick with the recent ones of the past? Appealing to an authority that has to ignore the whole history...look at one where there is a progression of change. That's not an argument for why this generation has to follow that example or progression.





Montrovant said:


> I'm sorry, what?  What ignoring of history did I do?  The historical trend in this country, so far as I'm aware, is of granting voting rights rather than removing them.  That doesn't mean it can't be done.  Nor is it the sole basis for my argument.





Dante said:


> Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is to them. Many of them were of the opinion that future generations should not be tied to the past as strictly as you would have us be.
> 
> This reminds me of people who don't fully grasp what Joseph Campbell said about religion and science:
> _“There's no real conflict between science and religion ... What is in conflict is the science of 2000 BC ... and the science of the 20th century AD.”
> ...





Montrovant said:


> I in no way appealed to the founders.  In fact, if anything, I was pointing out how the laws in this country have progressed after the founding.  The trend of granting voting rights would be allowing blacks to vote, or women, things well after the founding of the country.  I have never been a fan of appealing to what the founders would think of today's society nor of assuming one knows how they all thought, or that they even agreed on any given subject.  I don't know where you get an appeal to the founders from my bringing up changes to voting rights over the course of the country's history.


----------



## Dante (Aug 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I in no way appealed to the founders.  In fact, if anything, I was pointing out how the laws in this country have progressed after the founding.  The trend of granting voting rights would be allowing blacks to vote, or women, things well after the founding of the country.  I have never been a fan of appealing to what the founders would think of today's society nor of assuming one knows how they all thought, or that they even agreed on any given subject.  I don't know where you get an appeal to the founders from my bringing up changes to voting rights over the course of the country's history.


"_Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is actually to them. Many of them were of the opinion that future generations should not be tied to the past -- as strictly as you would have us be._"  -- maybe you misunderstood, maybe I was not as clear as I could have been.

The argument about the trend, the progression has always been based on an appeal to the founding generation ratifying documents with 'equal rights' enshrined -- this and other concepts. Now, look at what Dante actually wrote in the quoted text in this post: "_Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is actually to them. Many of them were of the opinion that future generations should not be tied to the past -- as strictly as you would have us be._"

The foundation of your appeal is not to the trend or the progression, but to the founding generation's use of terms like "natural rights, equal rights..."

and herein lies the dissociative conflict: Past generations did not stick with how the framers viewed representation, yet many like you say this generation must stick with the recent ones of the past?

Consciously or not, appealing to an authority with what amounts to ignoring the whole history is at best -- flawed.

Why should the current generation have to follow others?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 6, 2015)

Dante said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I in no way appealed to the founders.  In fact, if anything, I was pointing out how the laws in this country have progressed after the founding.  The trend of granting voting rights would be allowing blacks to vote, or women, things well after the founding of the country.  I have never been a fan of appealing to what the founders would think of today's society nor of assuming one knows how they all thought, or that they even agreed on any given subject.  I don't know where you get an appeal to the founders from my bringing up changes to voting rights over the course of the country's history.
> ...



I never said the current generation has to adhere to the past.  I merely pointed out the way this country has tended to go.  If you want to change that, fine.  I think that changing from a path of granting more rights to stripping them away should be looked at pretty damned carefully first, though.  

Also, the founders felt much differently about equal rights than I or others today do.  They denied rights that we take for granted in modern society.  I'm willing to admit appealing to the concept of equal rights, sure, but I'm certainly not appealing to the founders' idea of what that means.  

I don't think we are tied to the past.  There have been huge changes in our laws and society over the years.  In my opinion, the best, the most important changes we've undergone have involved granting rights and freedoms rather than taking them away.


----------



## Dante (Aug 6, 2015)

Montrovant with respect 





Dante said:


> ...





Montrovant said:


> I never said the current generation has to adhere to the past.  I merely pointed out the way this country has tended to go.  If you want to change that, fine.  I think that changing from a path of granting more rights to stripping them away should be looked at pretty damned carefully first, though.
> 
> Also, the founders felt much differently about equal rights than I or others today do.  They denied rights that we take for granted in modern society.  I'm willing to admit appealing to the concept of equal rights, sure, but I'm certainly not appealing to the founders' idea of what that means.
> 
> I don't think we are tied to the past.  There have been huge changes in our laws and society over the years.  In my opinion, the best, the most important changes we've undergone have involved granting rights and freedoms rather than taking them away.



You never said the current generation 'has to' adhere to the past, but your argument was that they should. Otherwise, wtf are you talking about if not now?

True, the country has gone the way you state -- in fits and starts. What I prefer is not in question or stated. I merely pointed out a major flaw in your argument.

You "_think that changing from a path of granting more rights to stripping them away should be looked at pretty damned carefully first, though_."  and I never disagreed with that. What I was addressing was the justification of your position and what it is based upon.

Your generalization of how "the founders felt" about "equal rights" leaves much to be desired. Did they as a whole,  think the way you would attach to them? Did others some of them act very differently than they felt?  Do you propose the founders be viewed as one-dimensional symbols?   It is a no-brainer to agree they denied rights to many. But taken out of context those facts do a grave injustice of exploration and understanding to both the presenter and the audience. I suggest you step up your game.

I agree with that last part of your statement in a general way and in theory, but... theories almost always leave out the human element and the laws of unintended consequences. and... Dante is opposed to popular democracy as it is without a question -- mob rule.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 6, 2015)

Dante said:


> Montrovant with respect
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My argument was never that the current generation should adhere to the founders, other than perhaps the current generation should adhere to the ideas of representational government and equal rights.  Again, I don't see how the fact that voting rights have almost always been granted to those previously denied them rather than taken away would be seen as an appeal to the founders.  The founders denied voting rights to plenty of people, and it took successive generations to grant those rights to those who had been denied.

Of course I was generalizing the founders.  They were a disparate group of men, often in conflict, from all I have read of them.  They agreed to a system in which a large portion of the population had no voting rights, whatever the reasoning of each individual.  I'm not trying to demonize them for it, just pointing out that it is true as a way to show that I am not and did not appeal to the founders.  It was a different time with far different societal norms.  I wouldn't think of asking our modern society to try and adhere to those norms.


----------



## Dante (Aug 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> My argument was never that the current generation should adhere to the founders, other than perhaps *the current generation should adhere to the ideas of representational government and equal rights.* (2.) Again, I don't see how the fact that voting rights have almost always been granted to those previously denied them rather than taken away would be seen as an appeal to the founders.  (3.) The founders denied voting rights to plenty of people, and it took successive generations to grant those rights to those who had been denied.
> 
> Of course I was generalizing the founders.  They were a disparate group of men, often in conflict, from all I have read of them.  They agreed to a system in which a large portion of the population had no voting rights, whatever the reasoning of each individual.  I'm not trying to demonize them for it, just pointing out that it is true as a way to show that I am not and did not appeal to the founders.  It was a different time with far different societal norms.  I wouldn't think of asking our modern society to try and adhere to those norms.



Why should "*the current generation"* have to *"adhere to the ideas of representational government and equal rights*"??? -- is what I ask.

(2.) The very foundations of the arguments for extending rights rather than restricting or outright denying rights is based upon ideals and arguments put forward by the founding generation. So it is an appeal to the ideals and arguments of the founding generation. Nothing could be simpler or plainer.
again "_Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is to them._"

(3.) What arguments did those "successive generations" use? What were they based upon, what did they appeal to if not the ideals and words of the framers?

They did indeed agree "to a system in which a large portion of the population had no voting rights" but they never claimed that everyone should have voting rights. So they are NOT hypocrites on that issue. Being "created equal" gets thrown around a lot, but what did that term mean back then?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 6, 2015)

Dante said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > My argument was never that the current generation should adhere to the founders, other than perhaps *the current generation should adhere to the ideas of representational government and equal rights.* (2.) Again, I don't see how the fact that voting rights have almost always been granted to those previously denied them rather than taken away would be seen as an appeal to the founders.  (3.) The founders denied voting rights to plenty of people, and it took successive generations to grant those rights to those who had been denied.
> ...



Why should we adhere to representational government and equal rights?  Because it works, because it is the bedrock of the law in this country.  If people don't want it, they need to completely redo the way our government and society function.  Why would you ask such a silly question other than to argue for argument's sake?  

I already said that I could agree to my appealing to the ideas of equal rights and representational government.  That is not appealing to the founders, as they neither created nor have ownership of those ideas.

I would say that people based their arguments upon the idea that the founders got some things wrong.   That an idea like equal rights should extend to women as well as men, something which was untrue in the founders' time.  So again, while the arguments may have been based on the idea of equal rights, it was not based on equal rights as put forward by the founders of the country.

I didn't say anything about hypocrisy.  I said that standards and values are different now.  I think the founders were wrong to allow slavery, to treat women as less than men, but I understand that at the time those things were viewed much differently.  I don't doubt that in the future, some things we do or think as a society now will be looked upon with the same disappointment or disdain.

Again, you seem to me to be arguing not because of any real disagreement but just to argue.


----------



## Dante (Aug 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Why should we adhere to representational government and equal rights?  Because it works, because it is the bedrock of the law in this country.  If people don't want it, they need to completely redo the way our government and society function.  Why would you ask such a silly question other than to argue for argument's sake?



Why?   Why??   Why???  Why????    Why are you sticking with a conservative argument? Because of tradition?


----------



## Dante (Aug 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I already said that I could agree to my appealing to the ideas of equal rights and representational government.  That is not appealing to the founders, as they neither created nor have ownership of those ideas.



You appealed to them by basing your argument on those who went before you. You cannot escape this truth. 

The founding generation put their ideals into practice and law, before anyone else in the Western world of that time did so. Your arguments are based on those foundations and those of England and the Magna Carta.

Why shouldn't the current generation ask and demand to rewrite things from a whole cloth? Why must they be tied to the past in the way you demand and ask?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 6, 2015)

Dante said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I already said that I could agree to my appealing to the ideas of equal rights and representational government.  That is not appealing to the founders, as they neither created nor have ownership of those ideas.
> ...



Because to rewrite things from whole cloth is to completely change the country.  It can be done, but considering what's been done until now has worked pretty well all things considered, why would the majority of people agree to toss it all and start completely fresh?

I don't think I've ever said changing the country is impossible, but unless you honestly believe that the majority of adults are so unhappy that giving up on the whole thing and starting completely anew is in the cards, what's really the point of your question?  I've already answered you that we stay with the way things are because it works.

You never said anything about me appealing to anyone but the founders.  Isn't that you ignoring everyone who went before them and after in creating and adapting the ideas of representational government and equal rights?


----------



## Dante (Aug 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I would say that people based their arguments upon the idea that the founders got some things wrong.   That an idea like equal rights should extend to women as well as men, something which was untrue in the founders' time.  So again, while the arguments may have been based on the idea of equal rights, it was not based on equal rights as put forward by the founders of the country.
> 
> I didn't say anything about hypocrisy.  I said that standards and values are different now.  I think the founders were wrong to allow slavery, to treat women as less than men, but I understand that at the time those things were viewed much differently.  I don't doubt that in the future, some things we do or think as a society now will be looked upon with the same disappointment or disdain.
> 
> Again, you seem to me to be arguing not because of any real disagreement but just to argue.



You believe no one of the founding generation believed equal rights extended to women and Negroes? You are wrong. You have misconstrued what the term 'equal rights' implied. Being born equal and having equality of opportunity are different things, no? Would a retarded child be considered born equal and would you demand that child be afforded every opportunity extended to others? Do you see no differences in people? 

Do you believe in 'natural rights'??? 

The founders did not ALLOW slavery -- it existed when they were born. Some of the founders ypu speak of outlawed slavery. Colonies where slavery propped up the economy and way of life struggled with it and individuals in those colonies struggled with their own consciences. But they did not ALLOW slavery in the way you suggest

Disappointment, sure? Disdain? Depends. Too many progressives turn on disdain as if it rubs off on them a moral superiority. It doesn't. I may have disdain for the institution of slavery, as many, many of the founders did. I have disdain for certain well know individuals of that era for how they dealt with it all. I have no disdain for the founding generation because of slavery...

I do have disdain for most all of the Revolutionary Rebels who demanded loyalty oaths of fellow citizens; neighbors and brothers and family. I have disdain for them for also first taking away the guns of their neighbors and brethren and second for confiscating their lands in order to pay for a rebellion the others did not agree with. Many were loyal to their colony, but not the Continental Congress. Their crimes? Not be Sons of Liberty


----------



## Dante (Aug 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Did a majority of the people in the Colonies agree to rewrite their constitutions -- and did the a majority of the later Americans agree to rewrite their Articles of Confederation? In each case the answer I say, is an unequivocal NO

It is a generational thing. In that history, where representational government existed, it is difficult to find equal rights existing beside it. 


gotta run

ltr

debates


Circus Time!!!


thank you


----------

