Who Should Have The Right To Vote?

[candycorn]

Why stop at civics? We're $17B in debt; lets limit the vote to those with advanced finance degrees and can figure out which candidate has the best program? Knowing trivia (such as who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) means zilch in this climate.

Since most of these people will be in Obama's key demographic....do you feel comfortable with that? If not why not? It will limit the smartest people in the room to voting and isn't that the goal?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why stop at civics? We're $17B in debt; lets limit the vote to those with advanced finance degrees and can figure out which candidate has the best program? Knowing trivia (such as who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) means zilch in this climate.

Since most of these people will be in Obama's key demographic....do you feel comfortable with that? If not why not? It will limit the smartest people in the room to voting and isn't that the goal?

That statement alone would take away your right to vote if it were up to me.

No one side has most of the stupid people, or most of the smart people.

 

[skye]

who? who in his/her right mind would like this scum....coming from Mexico?

who?

YUCK

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The IRS doesn't have anything to do with property tax.

Anyway, listen little man. Why would I, or anyone else, own a rental home if we weren't RENTING it? Oh, that's right, we wouldn't , so in all likelyhood that piece of property would be sitting undeveloped and collecting hardly anything in property tax.

However, put a house on the property, add water and other utlities, clean the place up a little bit and get it ready to rent out and the little state employee comes out and suddenly the property tax is more, and how do I pay that? Oh that's right, I raise the rent to cover it.

Which doesn't change the fact that YOU pay the property tax, whether you rent or not. By your idiotic reasoning, my boss pays my property taxes. No wait, his customers pay my property taxes. And my property taxes are due whether I work or not, whether my boss's customer's pay or not. Do you even possess the intelligence to see how massively your argument fails?

BTW, you saying "little state employee" says it all. You know that YOU pay property taxes and it chaffs your hide. As well it should.

 

[skye]

Ugly bitches....

pardon me ...but that's the truth

Ugly as hell

 

[candycorn]

Why stop at civics? We're $17B in debt; lets limit the vote to those with advanced finance degrees and can figure out which candidate has the best program? Knowing trivia (such as who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) means zilch in this climate.

Since most of these people will be in Obama's key demographic....do you feel comfortable with that? If not why not? It will limit the smartest people in the room to voting and isn't that the goal?

That statement alone would take away your right to vote if it were up to me.

No one side has most of the stupid people, or most of the smart people.

Whichever side your own is in the lead as far as stupid people go. Nice sidestep of the question however....why stop at Civics. Shouldn't the "most educated" have more say than someone else who isn't as smart?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

ok.... but not really a reading comprehension problem....

I didn't read the thread.... I came in on the last post and read the posts backwards until I responded....so, i am certain I missed a heck of a lot that was said.....

so what are you saying?

Not asking you to read the entire thread, just the OP. That alone could have prevented your misunderstanding.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Ugly bitches....

pardon me ...but that's the truth

Ugly as hell

2000 mile granite wall, machine gun nests every 500 meters.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Why stop at civics? We're $17B in debt; lets limit the vote to those with advanced finance degrees and can figure out which candidate has the best program? Knowing trivia (such as who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) means zilch in this climate.

Since most of these people will be in Obama's key demographic....do you feel comfortable with that? If not why not? It will limit the smartest people in the room to voting and isn't that the goal?

That statement alone would take away your right to vote if it were up to me.

No one side has most of the stupid people, or most of the smart people.

Whichever side your own is in the lead as far as stupid people go. Nice sidestep of the question however....why stop at Civics. Shouldn't the "most educated" have more say than someone else who isn't as smart?

That idea doesn't totally suck....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why stop at civics? We're $17B in debt; lets limit the vote to those with advanced finance degrees and can figure out which candidate has the best program? Knowing trivia (such as who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) means zilch in this climate.

Since most of these people will be in Obama's key demographic....do you feel comfortable with that? If not why not? It will limit the smartest people in the room to voting and isn't that the goal?

That statement alone would take away your right to vote if it were up to me.

No one side has most of the stupid people, or most of the smart people.

Whichever side your own is in the lead as far as stupid people go. Nice sidestep of the question however....why stop at Civics. Shouldn't the "most educated" have more say than someone else who isn't as smart?

Why don't you try reading the thread before you ask dumb questions. I've already stated that I am FOR a voter exam. My voter exam wouldn't exclude someone just because they are stupid overall though Candy, so there is hope for you to get to vote yet.

 

[Care4all]

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.

this way of thinking requires the op and those that agree, to assume people on welfare strictly want to stay on it and will only vote based on who can give them more.

It also requires them to admit that they do not support freedom or the Constitution, since they want to tell us who can vote.

besides the fact that people on welfare, generally don't vote...look at Ferguson, only 12% of those eligible in the welfare area were even registered to vote....or something like that...

And all statistics show the LEAST LIKELY to vote are those on welfare or with the lowest incomes.... those on welfare truly are not voting for a higher pay check, they just aren't voting in any kind of numbers.... white or black or hispanic etc....if they are poor, they are least likely, voters.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

this way of thinking requires the op and those that agree, to assume people on welfare strictly want to stay on it and will only vote based on who can give them more.

It also requires them to admit that they do not support freedom or the Constitution, since they want to tell us who can vote.

besides the fact that people on welfare, generally don't vote...look at Ferguson, only 12% of those eligible in the welfare area were even registered to vote....or something like that...

And all statistics show the LEAST LIKELY to vote are those on welfare or with the lowest incomes.... those on welfare truly are not voting for a higher pay check, they just aren't voting in any kind of numbers.... white or black or hispanic etc....if they are poor, they are least likely, voters.

and frankly we shouldn't be encouraging them to change that.

Sorry, but its the truth. If you can't even manage your own day to day affairs, I don't want you having any input in how I manage mine.

 

[candycorn]

Why stop at civics? We're $17B in debt; lets limit the vote to those with advanced finance degrees and can figure out which candidate has the best program? Knowing trivia (such as who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) means zilch in this climate.

Since most of these people will be in Obama's key demographic....do you feel comfortable with that? If not why not? It will limit the smartest people in the room to voting and isn't that the goal?

That statement alone would take away your right to vote if it were up to me.

No one side has most of the stupid people, or most of the smart people.

Whichever side your own is in the lead as far as stupid people go. Nice sidestep of the question however....why stop at Civics. Shouldn't the "most educated" have more say than someone else who isn't as smart?

Why don't you try reading the thread before you ask dumb questions. I've already stated that I am FOR a voter exam. My voter exam wouldn't exclude someone just because they are stupid overall though Candy, so there is hope for you to get to vote yet.

I did read it; your ideas are as silly as you are and have no place in an adult conversation.

The new idea is why not just give anyone with a Masters Degree in Economics a vote and we won't have to worry about the silly idea that if you can name the Secretary of Defense, you're somehow "qualified" to know whom has the best economic policy.

We're $17T in debt. Lets just let the brightest moneymen and women chart the course and pick our leaders?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote.”

Fortunately that's not your decision to make, or the decision of those who agree with you.

The right to vote is inalienable and fundamental, it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution or man.

Otherwise, your ignorance of the Constitution and your contempt for the inalienable rights of your fellow citizens is noted.

 

[skye]

All US Citizens should have the right to vote.

Even the skunks.....

OMG !!!

Not skunks .... yuck yuck

they are ugly to the max those jump fencers

send them back home..who needs ugliness like that?

YUCK!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why stop at civics? We're $17B in debt; lets limit the vote to those with advanced finance degrees and can figure out which candidate has the best program? Knowing trivia (such as who is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) means zilch in this climate.

Since most of these people will be in Obama's key demographic....do you feel comfortable with that? If not why not? It will limit the smartest people in the room to voting and isn't that the goal?

That statement alone would take away your right to vote if it were up to me.

No one side has most of the stupid people, or most of the smart people.

Whichever side your own is in the lead as far as stupid people go. Nice sidestep of the question however....why stop at Civics. Shouldn't the "most educated" have more say than someone else who isn't as smart?

Why don't you try reading the thread before you ask dumb questions. I've already stated that I am FOR a voter exam. My voter exam wouldn't exclude someone just because they are stupid overall though Candy, so there is hope for you to get to vote yet.

I did read it; your ideas are as silly as you are and have no place in an adult conversation.

The new idea is why not just give anyone with a Masters Degree in Economics a vote and we won't have to worry about the silly idea that if you can name the Secretary of Defense, you're somehow "qualified" to know whom has the best economic policy.

We're $17T in debt. Lets just let the brightest moneymen and women chart the course and pick our leaders?

I didn't propose that anyone should know who has the best plan for anything to vote moron. I proposed that those who can prove they are some what engaged can vote.

I seriously doubt that there are more than 200 people in this country who would be qualified to tell you who the best person to fix our economy is, so that would be a ridiculously stupid criteria.

Besides, my 6 year old child could figure out that are economy is fucked up because we spend more than we bring in in taxes. Should she get to vote Candy?

Harry Potter Forums bull Index page

^That is where you are qualified to debate, not here. Go away child.

 

[skye]

LOL

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“If you're a net consumer of government, you don't get to vote.”

Fortunately that's not your decision to make, or the decision of those who agree with you.

The right to vote is inalienable and fundamental, it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution or man.

Otherwise, your ignorance of the Constitution and your contempt for the inalienable rights of your fellow citizens is noted.

Once again C_Clayton_Jones is WRONG.

If i could get the votes , I could certainly get a Constitutional Amendment taking your vote away.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

this way of thinking requires the op and those that agree, to assume people on welfare strictly want to stay on it and will only vote based on who can give them more.

It also requires them to admit that they do not support freedom or the Constitution, since they want to tell us who can vote.

besides the fact that people on welfare, generally don't vote...look at Ferguson, only 12% of those eligible in the welfare area were even registered to vote....or something like that...

And all statistics show the LEAST LIKELY to vote are those on welfare or with the lowest incomes.... those on welfare truly are not voting for a higher pay check, they just aren't voting in any kind of numbers.... white or black or hispanic etc....if they are poor, they are least likely, voters.

and frankly we shouldn't be encouraging them to change that.

Sorry, but its the truth. If you can't even manage your own day to day affairs, I don't want you having any input in how I manage mine.

Another conservative exhibits his contempt for the fundamental right to vote, and the rights of other citizens.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

this way of thinking requires the op and those that agree, to assume people on welfare strictly want to stay on it and will only vote based on who can give them more.

It also requires them to admit that they do not support freedom or the Constitution, since they want to tell us who can vote.

besides the fact that people on welfare, generally don't vote...look at Ferguson, only 12% of those eligible in the welfare area were even registered to vote....or something like that...

And all statistics show the LEAST LIKELY to vote are those on welfare or with the lowest incomes.... those on welfare truly are not voting for a higher pay check, they just aren't voting in any kind of numbers.... white or black or hispanic etc....if they are poor, they are least likely, voters.

and frankly we shouldn't be encouraging them to change that.

Sorry, but its the truth. If you can't even manage your own day to day affairs, I don't want you having any input in how I manage mine.

Another conservative exhibits his contempt for the fundamental right to vote, and the rights of other citizens.

The only thing I exhibited there was a knowledge of the facts stupid.

The voters can certainly pass a Constitutional Amendment limiting who may vote and who may not.

That you don't like that fact, doesn't change it one bit.

Notice, that despite your stupid crybaby effort to imply I did, that I did NOT endorse doing such a thing. I merely noted that it CAN be done.