Who Should Have The Right To Vote?

[Siete]

circumvent the Constitution for a personal opinion ?

I keep saying RW's are morons , and they insist on proving Im 100% correct.

 

[bripat9643]

circumvent the Constitution for a personal opinion ?

I keep saying RW's are morons , and they insist on proving Im 100% correct.

Where does the Constitution say the right to vote can't be circumscribed by such considerations? Only property owners were allowed to vote before the Civil War. That was accepted as perfectly Constitutional. There's no basis to claim that accepting government payments can't also be a reason to deny someone the vote.

BTW, you're a 100% moron, and you are seldom correct.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No, you miss my point: unless it is military or emergency responder pay, ANYTHING should be counted! Never work in your life and now collecting social security? No vote!

I didn't miss your point. My post accommodated your point.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's an old idea that I agree with, but it will never come to pass. For one thing, the people you want to take the vote away from now have the right to vote. The chances that they will give up their right to vote are non-existent.

But they don't have that right. This is the problem, the Left so thoroughly rewriting U.S. history that even people on our side can get confused. States have always determined voting rights and never was there entertained such a foolish notion that any jackass with a heartbeat should be able to vote. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which extended voting rights to former slaves and women respectively, still did not establish the Leftist myth that EVERYONE can vote, even wetbacks who jumped the border.

And speaking of Constitutional Amendments, we can certainly pass one. It hasn't gone unnoticed that with the bulk of state legislatures being GOP controlled, we are coming very close to the point we can initiate an Article 5 convention and begin to take our country back from the statist Left.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

Time for this rightwing lunacy to make another of its regular appearances.

How do you propose to calculate whether a rich guy is a giver or a taker? He might pay taxes of a certain amount, but he might be getting a net higher benefit from all the government funded goods and services he's using,

in a business, for example.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's an old idea that I agree with, but it will never come to pass. For one thing, the people you want to take the vote away from now have the right to vote. The chances that they will give up their right to vote are non-existent.

But they don't have that right. This is the problem, the Left so thoroughly rewriting U.S. history that even people on our side can get confused. States have always determined voting rights and never was there entertained such a foolish notion that any jackass with a heartbeat should be able to vote. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which extended voting rights to former slaves and women respectively, still did not establish the Leftist myth that EVERYONE can vote, even wetbacks who jumped the border.

And speaking of Constitutional Amendments, we can certainly pass one. It hasn't gone unnoticed that with the bulk of state legislatures being GOP controlled, we are coming very close to the point we can initiate an Article 5 convention and begin to take our country back from the statist Left.

Not everyone is allowed to own a gun. Does that mean there is no such thing a gun rights?

 

[bripat9643]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

Time for this rightwing lunacy to make another of its regular appearances.

How do you propose to calculate whether a rich guy is a giver or a taker? He might pay taxes of a certain amount, but he might be getting a net higher benefit from all the government funded goods and services he's using,

in a business, for example.

It's not whether you benefit from government goods and services, like roads and police protection, it's wether you get payments from the government.

We can always count on a lib to misstate the argument because they can't win otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

It's an old idea that I agree with, but it will never come to pass. For one thing, the people you want to take the vote away from now have the right to vote. The chances that they will give up their right to vote are non-existent.

But they don't have that right. This is the problem, the Left so thoroughly rewriting U.S. history that even people on our side can get confused. States have always determined voting rights and never was there entertained such a foolish notion that any jackass with a heartbeat should be able to vote. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which extended voting rights to former slaves and women respectively, still did not establish the Leftist myth that EVERYONE can vote, even wetbacks who jumped the border.

And speaking of Constitutional Amendments, we can certainly pass one. It hasn't gone unnoticed that with the bulk of state legislatures being GOP controlled, we are coming very close to the point we can initiate an Article 5 convention and begin to take our country back from the statist Left.

Not everyone is allowed to own a gun. Does that mean there is no such thing a gun rights?

Only criminals are not allowed to own a gun, and that right can only be taken away buy a jury trial. They also don't have the right to vote.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's an old idea that I agree with, but it will never come to pass. For one thing, the people you want to take the vote away from now have the right to vote. The chances that they will give up their right to vote are non-existent.

But they don't have that right. This is the problem, the Left so thoroughly rewriting U.S. history that even people on our side can get confused. States have always determined voting rights and never was there entertained such a foolish notion that any jackass with a heartbeat should be able to vote. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which extended voting rights to former slaves and women respectively, still did not establish the Leftist myth that EVERYONE can vote, even wetbacks who jumped the border.

And speaking of Constitutional Amendments, we can certainly pass one. It hasn't gone unnoticed that with the bulk of state legislatures being GOP controlled, we are coming very close to the point we can initiate an Article 5 convention and begin to take our country back from the statist Left.

Not everyone is allowed to own a gun. Does that mean there is no such thing a gun rights?

I know I have to explain this to you because, as a Leftard, you've never read the Constitution. There's a specific right to own a gun in the Constitution, but there is no right to vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's an old idea that I agree with, but it will never come to pass. For one thing, the people you want to take the vote away from now have the right to vote. The chances that they will give up their right to vote are non-existent.

But they don't have that right. This is the problem, the Left so thoroughly rewriting U.S. history that even people on our side can get confused. States have always determined voting rights and never was there entertained such a foolish notion that any jackass with a heartbeat should be able to vote. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which extended voting rights to former slaves and women respectively, still did not establish the Leftist myth that EVERYONE can vote, even wetbacks who jumped the border.

And speaking of Constitutional Amendments, we can certainly pass one. It hasn't gone unnoticed that with the bulk of state legislatures being GOP controlled, we are coming very close to the point we can initiate an Article 5 convention and begin to take our country back from the statist Left.

Not everyone is allowed to own a gun. Does that mean there is no such thing a gun rights?

I know I have to explain this to you because, as a Leftard, you've never read the Constitution. There's a specific right to own a gun in the Constitution, but there is no right to vote.

There are specific rights to vote in the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

Time for this rightwing lunacy to make another of its regular appearances.

How do you propose to calculate whether a rich guy is a giver or a taker? He might pay taxes of a certain amount, but he might be getting a net higher benefit from all the government funded goods and services he's using,

in a business, for example.

It's not whether you benefit from government goods and services, like roads and police protection, it's wether you get payments from the government.

We can always count on a lib to misstate the argument because they can't win otherwise.

Goods and services are payments moron.

btw, this looney idea takes the right to vote away from everyone on Medicare, because Medicare is only 60% covered by the payroll taxes those people paid. The rest comes out of the general fund.

So good luck convincing your parents or grandparents they don't deserve to vote.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's an old idea that I agree with, but it will never come to pass. For one thing, the people you want to take the vote away from now have the right to vote. The chances that they will give up their right to vote are non-existent.

But they don't have that right. This is the problem, the Left so thoroughly rewriting U.S. history that even people on our side can get confused. States have always determined voting rights and never was there entertained such a foolish notion that any jackass with a heartbeat should be able to vote. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which extended voting rights to former slaves and women respectively, still did not establish the Leftist myth that EVERYONE can vote, even wetbacks who jumped the border.

And speaking of Constitutional Amendments, we can certainly pass one. It hasn't gone unnoticed that with the bulk of state legislatures being GOP controlled, we are coming very close to the point we can initiate an Article 5 convention and begin to take our country back from the statist Left.

Not everyone is allowed to own a gun. Does that mean there is no such thing a gun rights?

I know I have to explain this to you because, as a Leftard, you've never read the Constitution. There's a specific right to own a gun in the Constitution, but there is no right to vote.

There are specific rights to vote in the Constitution.

Really? Where?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

Can you prove you pay more in taxes than you receive in government funded benefits? And I mean all benefits. Including the military that's defending you.

Let's hear you prove it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's an old idea that I agree with, but it will never come to pass. For one thing, the people you want to take the vote away from now have the right to vote. The chances that they will give up their right to vote are non-existent.

But they don't have that right. This is the problem, the Left so thoroughly rewriting U.S. history that even people on our side can get confused. States have always determined voting rights and never was there entertained such a foolish notion that any jackass with a heartbeat should be able to vote. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which extended voting rights to former slaves and women respectively, still did not establish the Leftist myth that EVERYONE can vote, even wetbacks who jumped the border.

And speaking of Constitutional Amendments, we can certainly pass one. It hasn't gone unnoticed that with the bulk of state legislatures being GOP controlled, we are coming very close to the point we can initiate an Article 5 convention and begin to take our country back from the statist Left.

Not everyone is allowed to own a gun. Does that mean there is no such thing a gun rights?

I know I have to explain this to you because, as a Leftard, you've never read the Constitution. There's a specific right to own a gun in the Constitution, but there is no right to vote.

There are specific rights to vote in the Constitution.

Really? Where?

You cited them yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Indeed, "It's created a serious conflict of interest when" Corporations "are dependent on government are able to" to contribute campaign money to "sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country."

Stop corporations from "extorting" the citizens of America.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We've come a long way in this country. At the start, voting laws were determined on a state by state basis. Many required land ownership for voting rights. Women and colored people were not necessarily excluded since they too have been landowners since well before the start of this country. The concept was that those who had no investment in this country should have no say in in our government, a concept not without merit.

These days it seems we've accepted this idiotic notion that everyone should be able to vote. It's created a serious conflict of interest when people dependent on government are able to vote to increase and sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country.

So here's my proposal. Zero liability voters should be banned!

That's right. If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote. It's perfectly fair since I'm the one paying taxes to fund your entitlements. This doesn't include people on Social Security. They paid into that and they deserve to draw from it. That isn't welfare.

But for those of you who pay ZERO taxes, who are on welfare, foodstamps, or disability, I don't hate you, I have no animosity toward you, but I don't think you should have the right to vote in this country.

Can you prove you pay more in taxes than you receive in government funded benefits? And I mean all benefits. Including the military that's defending you.

Let's hear you prove it.

He' can't, what he can do is whine.

 

[Amazon]

" . . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . " - U.S. Declaration of Independence


" . . . how can the consent of the governed be given, if the right to vote be denied?" - Susan B Anthony

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You cited them yourself.

No, I cited amendments that removed discrimination based on previous condition of servitude or gender, but that did not extend the right to vote to every jackass that breathes.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Indeed, "It's created a serious conflict of interest when" Corporations "are dependent on government are able to" to contribute campaign money to "sustain such dependence extorting the toils of the producers in this country."

Stop corporations from "extorting" the citizens of America.

Why do you preach about corporate welfare as if conservatives weren't against it too? Subsidies for corporations are an affront to free market sink-or-swim capitalism championed by conservatives. So stuff your strawman arguments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You cited them yourself.

No, I cited amendments that removed discrimination based on previous condition of servitude or gender, but that did not extend the right to vote to every jackass that breathes.

Section 2 of the 14th amendment specifically references the right to vote:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.