On welfare? No right to vote. Good idea? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - On welfare? No right to vote. Good idea? (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 1/18/2008 4:56:54 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
I just thank God that this idea will never come to pass in America.

I know that you guys LOVE believing that everyone who cashes a government check is a lazy, worthless sack of shit who sits around watching Oprah and drinking malt liquor all day. The reality is quite different.

Don't let that get in the way of your witch hunt though. Don't let the truth stop you.

It's about paying taxes.

Posted: 1/18/2008 5:00:23 PM EDT

[#2]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:
I just thank God that this idea will never come to pass in America.

I know that you guys LOVE believing that everyone who cashes a government check is a lazy, worthless sack of shit who sits around watching Oprah and drinking malt liquor all day. The reality is quite different.

Don't let that get in the way of your witch hunt though. Don't let the truth stop you.

It's about paying taxes.

No, it is about being a government for the people, by the people.

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:37:31 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

So you want to compare committing a crime to being poor? Criminals lose certain rights because they choose to be removed from normal society by committing the crime(s). Preventing the government from drawing lines based on economic status is one reason why the constitution is so important.

Please remember that the Constitution is an actual document containing specific words, and is certainly not symbolic shorthand for "Things that make schneecat feel proud and happy."

At the time the Constitution was adopted, many states had land qualifications for voting. Poll taxes, specificically intended to exclude those most likely to draw on public welfare were permissible in elections for federal offices up until the adoption of the 24th Amendment in 1964. Poll taxes for state elections remain legal to this day, but for the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the concept identified by the word "federal" is coterminous with the concepts identified by the words "any" and "all."

It is true that the Constitution recognizes no difference of right between rich and poor. However, the distinction to be drawn between those who may with justice be permitted a vote and those who should not has nothing to with poverty, and only to do with one's election to dip in and enjoy a handful of goodies extracted by force from his working neighbors. No one should have a say in the amount of money to be extracted from others for his benefit, when nothing is extracted from him to put into the pot.

The Story of Schneecat and the Birth of the Franchise
Five men sit in a clearing on an uncharted island just as day breaks. Man One stands up and says "We should find food and something to drink." Man Two says "Good idea. Let's go." Man Three says "I'm feeling a little out of sorts. I think I'll stay here." Man Four says "My leg's broken. Can't help." Man Five says "I don't know how to do any of that stuff. I'll stay here and nap."

One and Two put in a long day, and return at dusk with two fair-sized fish, a double armload of firewood, and 6 coconuts swishing with cool, sweet milk.

One and Two stretch a bit, and then as the others watch, take turns with a crude bow bringing a fire to life and gradually building it large enough to take the chill off the evening. One and Two recline on the windward side of the fire, so the smoke blows away from them as they wait for it to die to embers fit for cooking. They make no complaint when Three, Four, and Five range themselves around the fire.

Presently, Three coughs a bit. Five's nose begins to run. Four's eye's water.

One and Two begin to crack open the coconuts and sip the refreshing contents as the other men watch. Belching, Two skewers each fish and hands the larger to One. All the men salivate as the fish roast over the embers and a delightful aroma untwists their empty bellies.

One and Two begin to discuss whether they have a moral obligation to help any or all of the others, and if so, how much each of the paupers should receive and why. Just at that moment,

SCHNEECAT thunders from the clouds: "ONE, TWO! Hear me now! Do not consult between yourselves as to the disposition of your property! You must include in your deliberations those who hope for your mercy! They vote, too, or nobody does!

The mere fact that you produced, that you created, and those others did nothing means NOTHING!!! Those who dozed while you worked are entitled to an equal say in the disposition of every good thing you wrought; fish, fire and the pleasant side of the fire; coconuts and coconut milk! The fruit of your labor can be enjoyed only if those who produced NONE OF IT have as much say as those who produced it all. And by the way, don't expect to get a whole lot of that fish. It'll be 3 - 2, you know."

A fine sense of justice schneecat has.

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:43:13 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What if you *willingly* resigned that right, in order to receive welfare checks?

Even more tempting, but it's still coercion.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm reasonably certain most people on welfare don't vote anyway. Guilt ridden liberals with money vote for this stuff.

good point ...

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:43:37 PM EDT

[#5]

In light of FLA1LA's post (God I love it when you post), I'm seriously considering changing my position on this. Actually, consider it changed unless somebody does a damn fine job countering what he just wrote.

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:44:23 PM EDT

[#6]

At what level though? Welfare programs are generally run at the state level.

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:45:20 PM EDT

[#7]

the right to vote, not for sale for any price, even to the last drop of my blood

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:46:04 PM EDT

[#8]

How about we just do away with it? Seems like a lot better idea to me.

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:47:11 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
----Kick ass post snipped----

Well said!

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:48:53 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
good point ...

And I might be right, but when FLA1LA posts something to the contrary, I begin to seriously question my previously held position. He's one of maybe 5 members who will force me to reconsider something. I hope I'm not strokin' his ego, or anything. I'm just sayin'.

His last post really has me thinking.

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:51:46 PM EDT

[#11]

Fuck 'em. Goddamned parasites. It may be a 'right,' but be damned to anyone who presumes a say in my government, who does nothing to contribute.

It's all fine for leeches to sit back and determine how my tax dollars should be spent, so long as I may in turn determine how their day should be spent. In return for my tax liability, I shall come home to a clean and orderly house, a well kept yard, and a hot meal; I expect that those whose existence I subsidize shall work diligently under my direction.

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:53:43 PM EDT

[#12]

It seems strange that anyone would try to give the framer's an opinion on this when they didn't have federal welfare or federal income tax. I think if anything they'd be sick we had the program and were robbing people to fund it to start with.

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:54:43 PM EDT

[#13]

Okay, but if I pay more taxes than you, I can roll up on you in line and take your vote. Or if I don't drive on the roads as much as you or don't have kids in public school or have never called the police and you have. Man, it's going to be more interesting than playoff tie-breaker criteria!

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:55:53 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

His last post really has me thinking.

Me too. Taken to the next step, what about the income tax?

What happens when a candidate comes out with a platform to exempt the bottom 51% of earners from paying any tax?

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:57:09 PM EDT

[#15]

I think every American should get 1 VOTE per $1K in taxes they pay .... the more you contribute to the GOV ... the more Say you have in it ...

Posted: 1/18/2008 6:59:36 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
I don't agree with "Taxation without Representation"

I also don't agree with "Representation without Taxation".

If you want your say in how things are going to be run, then you'll need to contribute a little more than being born and cashing a check.

Well put. Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:01:13 PM EDT

[#17]

There is no right to vote. And yes, the vote should be suspended until you roll off of the teet.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:03:28 PM EDT

[#18]

no right to live would be better

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:03:55 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
There is no right to vote.

There's plenty of 'right to vote.' It's rolled up in all the other non-enumerated rights that people (and the government) like to pretend don't exist simply because they're not listed in the Constitution.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:07:05 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Probably a bad idea.

The right to vote is a basic right. As much as I despise welfare schwoogies, our country is not a dictatorship.

No, its not.

Voting is the process by which larger numbers of people take what they want from the smaller numbers of people.

People already shown to be prone to laying on their ass and taking from me should be thwarted however possible.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:07:37 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There is no right to vote.

There's plenty of 'right to vote.' It's rolled up in all the other non-enumerated rights that people (and the government) like to pretend don't exist simply because they're not listed in the Constitution.

However, if it's not in the Constitution the government is not restricted in limiting the right to vote, correct?

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:08:17 PM EDT

[#22]

No.

5sub

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:10:20 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There is no right to vote.

There's plenty of 'right to vote.' It's rolled up in all the other non-enumerated rights that people (and the government) like to pretend don't exist simply because they're not listed in the Constitution.

However, if it's not in the Constitution the government is not restricted in limiting the right to vote, correct?

Incorrect.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Of course, the government pays absolutely zero attention to these two amendments, and pretty much does whatever it wants.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:12:02 PM EDT

[#24]

Stow-a-ways should not be allowed to steer the ship.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:13:14 PM EDT

[#25]

height=8

Quoted:
Probably a bad idea.

The right to vote is a basic right. As much as I despise welfare schwoogies, our country is not a dictatorship.

You may want to ctrl-f on a copy of the US Constitution ;)

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:13:23 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
The right to vote is a basic right.

There is no "right to vote" enumerated in the Constitution. Two amendments cite very specific conditions fo not denying the ability to vote. That does not preclude other reasons from being used (e.g. not being on welfare).

Amendment 15: 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.

Amendment 19: 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 sex.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:15:26 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There is no right to vote.

There's plenty of 'right to vote.' It's rolled up in all the other non-enumerated rights that people (and the government) like to pretend don't exist simply because they're not listed in the Constitution.

However, if it's not in the Constitution the government is not restricted in limiting the right to vote, correct?

Incorrect.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Of course, the government pays absolutely zero attention to these two amendments, and pretty much does whatever it wants.

You got me. The feds have no authority, but the states can set limits on who gets to vote....felons for example.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:19:36 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There is no right to vote.

There's plenty of 'right to vote.' It's rolled up in all the other non-enumerated rights that people (and the government) like to pretend don't exist simply because they're not listed in the Constitution.

However, if it's not in the Constitution the government is not restricted in limiting the right to vote, correct?

Incorrect.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Of course, the government pays absolutely zero attention to these two amendments, and pretty much does whatever it wants.

Hey, knock knock.

I am Mr. 10th Amendment all the way, but there is no right to vote. All rights can be summed up in one thought- the free exercise of liberty, constrained by the rights of others. Voting is a positive right, and the idea that there is such a thing is an entitlement mindset. There are only negative rights that can be asserted outside the sphere of your own will (the right to deny the aggression of others).

That is to say- you have the right to say you want to elect a leader for yourself. You have no right to join with lots of other people and elect one for me.

The Philosophy of Liberty

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. – Thomas Jefferson

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:33:12 PM EDT

[#29]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:

So you want to compare committing a crime to being poor? Criminals lose certain rights because they choose to be removed from normal society by committing the crime(s). Preventing the government from drawing lines based on economic status is one reason why the constitution is so important.

Please remember that the Constitution is an actual document containing specific words, and is certainly not symbolic shorthand for "Things that make schneecat feel proud and happy."

At the time the Constitution was adopted, many states had land qualifications for voting. Poll taxes, specificically intended to exclude those most likely to draw on public welfare were permissible in elections for federal offices up until the adoption of the 24th Amendment in 1964. Poll taxes for state elections remain legal to this day, but for the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the concept identified by the word "federal" is coterminous with the concepts identified by the words "any" and "all."

It is true that the Constitution recognizes no difference of right between rich and poor. However, the distinction to be drawn between those who may with justice be permitted a vote and those who should not has nothing to with poverty, and only to do with one's election to dip in and enjoy a handful of goodies extracted by force from his working neighbors. No one should have a say in the amount of money to be extracted from others for his benefit, when nothing is extracted from him to put into the pot.

height=8

The Story of Schneecat and the Birth of the Franchise
Five men sit in a clearing on an uncharted island just as day breaks. Man One stands up and says "We should find food and something to drink." Man Two says "Good idea. Let's go." Man Three says "I'm feeling a little out of sorts. I think I'll stay here." Man Four says "My leg's broken. Can't help." Man Five says "I don't know how to do any of that stuff. I'll stay here and nap."

One and Two put in a long day, and return at dusk with two fair-sized fish, a double armload of firewood, and 6 coconuts swishing with cool, sweet milk.

One and Two stretch a bit, and then as the others watch, take turns with a crude bow bringing a fire to life and gradually building it large enough to take the chill off the evening. One and Two recline on the windward side of the fire, so the smoke blows away from them as they wait for it to die to embers fit for cooking. They make no complaint when Three, Four, and Five range themselves around the fire.

Presently, Three coughs a bit. Five's nose begins to run. Four's eye's water.

One and Two begin to crack open the coconuts and sip the refreshing contents as the other men watch. Belching, Two skewers each fish and hands the larger to One. All the men salivate as the fish roast over the embers and a delightful aroma untwists their empty bellies.

One and Two begin to discuss whether they have a moral obligation to help any or all of the others, and if so, how much each of the paupers should receive and why. Just at that moment,

SCHNEECAT thunders from the clouds: "ONE, TWO! Hear me now! Do not consult between yourselves as to the disposition of your property! You must include in your deliberations those who hope for your mercy! They vote, too, or nobody does!

The mere fact that you produced, that you created, and those others did nothing means NOTHING!!! Those who dozed while you worked are entitled to an equal say in the disposition of every good thing you wrought; fish, fire and the pleasant side of the fire; coconuts and coconut milk! The fruit of your labor can be enjoyed only if those who produced NONE OF IT have as much say as those who produced it all. And by the way, don't expect to get a whole lot of that fish. It'll be 3 - 2, you know."

A fine sense of justice schneecat has.

Actually, the constitution is any but just "words." It was written by people much smarter than any of us; they realized that without limits on the government, no person would be free and freedom could only be had with a document that would change and adapt to changing times. Are you seriously trying to argue everything was perfect in the country when it was written? Do you think slavery should come back?

While your story is entertaining, it is far from reality. What does or does not make me feel "proud and happy" has nothing to do with this conversation and you really don't know me, so please don't presume.

BTW, since when do voters have a direct vote in how money is spent? Last time I checked, there are very few ways a person can vote to determine what the "law" actually is (the main exception being some state voting procedures). Only a sheeple would lay down their right to vote and the right of other free people to vote.

"To secure [our inherent and inalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

"Private charities as well as contributions to public purposes in proportion to everyone's circumstances are certainly among the duties we owe to society." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Christian, 1812. ME 13:134

What happens once you take away the right of the poor to vote? Do you allow the government to take away the right of the poos to walk down the street? The slippery slope you wish to creat is terrifying.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:37:18 PM EDT

[#30]

The problem is that people on welfare are too lazy to vote.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:40:40 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There is no right to vote.

There's plenty of 'right to vote.' It's rolled up in all the other non-enumerated rights that people (and the government) like to pretend don't exist simply because they're not listed in the Constitution.

However, if it's not in the Constitution the government is not restricted in limiting the right to vote, correct?

Incorrect.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Of course, the government pays absolutely zero attention to these two amendments, and pretty much does whatever it wants.

Hey, knock knock.

I am Mr. 10th Amendment all the way, but there is no right to vote. All rights can be summed up in one thought- the free exercise of liberty, constrained by the rights of others. Voting is a positive right, and the idea that there is such a thing is an entitlement mindset. There are only negative rights that can be asserted outside the sphere of your own will (the right to deny the aggression of others).

That is to say- you have the right to say you want to elect a leader for yourself. You have no right to join with lots of other people and elect one for me.

The Philosophy of Liberty

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. – Thomas Jefferson

As much as I enjoy 'The Philosophy of Liberty,' we do not live in such a simplistic anarchy as the theory describes. We exist under the rather flawed idea of a social contract. While I would never compel another to act under the authority of a leader that I would elect for myself, I cannot speak for what that leader may do of their own accord once I have ceded any portion of my sovereignty to them.

Then again, if States' Rights was a phrase worth a damn in this day and age, the State itself would provide a buffer between the citizen and the federal government.

But allow me to ask if you deny the social contract under which we live? I have no problem if you do. But if you deny the position and authority of our elected leaders, then you must also similarly deny the document that creates such positions and the methods of their selection in the first place.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:41:55 PM EDT

[#32]

Throw in a drug test and I would be happy.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:45:04 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Throw in a drug test and I would be happy.

Ok. Which drugs? Caffeine? Nicotene? Prescribed anti-depressants? Or just the drugs that we consider "illegal" at the moment?

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:46:30 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
But allow me to ask if you deny the social contract under which we live? I have no problem if you do. But if you deny the position and authority of our elected leaders, then you must also similarly deny the document that creates such positions and the methods of their selection in the first place.

I do take issue with its legitimacy, yes.

I also pragmatically realize that people get the government they deserve, by and large.

I point myslef in correct direction, but am not stupid.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:47:12 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
I think every American should get 1 VOTE per $1K in taxes they pay .... the more you contribute to the GOV ... the more Say you have in it ...

Oprah called... You won't be needing that Colt anymore.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:47:13 PM EDT

[#36]

"Tell me what this newspaper says before you can vote", said the big cop that was working at the polls as he laid a Chinese newspaper in front of the potential voter.

Posted: 1/18/2008 7:54:00 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But allow me to ask if you deny the social contract under which we live? I have no problem if you do. But if you deny the position and authority of our elected leaders, then you must also similarly deny the document that creates such positions and the methods of their selection in the first place.

I do take issue with its legitimacy, yes.

Might I ask why? I do seriously read most of what you post here, and ponder a lot of it, so I would like to know.

And do you take issue with it's current legitimacy, or the fact that our system was put into place from the start?

(And by all means, if this is summed up, or summed up better, on your site or elsewhere, please point the way.)

Posted: 1/18/2008 8:18:01 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Might I ask why? I do seriously read most of what you post here, and ponder a lot of it, so I would like to know.

And do you take issue with it's current legitimacy, or the fact that our system was put into place from the start?

(And by all means, if this is summed up, or summed up better, on your site or elsewhere, please point the way.)

This is not even what I was talking about before, but it came to mind just now.

Originally Written By Lysander Spooner

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.

If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.

The USC created a federal government and gave it the purse in one hand and the sword in the other, to use Patrick Henry's words. He warned his countrymen that if they did that- troops would cross the river and take their liberties in no time. That is exactly what happened. There was no other way it could have happened.

Consider for a moment, if we are resting on the idea of consent, that only approx. 1/6th of the voting age males took part in voting to send men to the ratification conventions. That leaves out ALL classes of people not qualified to vote. You are looking at a small number of people that could even be somewhat reasonably said to have consented to the process.

Read just the first few sections, at least, of the document I pulled that quote above from: No Treason. It goes into more detail about the absolute moral legitimacy of compacts and social contracts. I do not buy the social contract BS at all. I may be forced to live with it at gunpoint, but I am awake and free enough not to have anyone piss down my back and say its raining.

I could type all night about this, but I am going to raid the fridge now...

Posted: 1/18/2008 8:18:31 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
I just thank God that this idea will never come to pass in America.

I know that you guys LOVE believing that everyone who cashes a government check is a lazy, worthless sack of shit who sits around watching Oprah and drinking malt liquor all day. The reality is quite different.

Don't let that get in the way of your witch hunt though. Don't let the truth stop you.

Because the truth is:

8 year olds would still be working in sweat shops.
Factory workers would still be killed in frequent accidents.
Standard Oil would still be in business.
No food safety laws.

Fuck it, lets go back to the 19th century

You think these protections we take for granted came from the good will of employers? Fuck no, they came about because the American people were good and pissed off.

Who is more wothwhile in our society?
Who should have more say?

An American Soldier who makes $35,000 a year?

Rosie O Donut, a liberal bitch who makes millions?

One protects your freedom.

The other takes a big fat dump all over it.

Posted: 1/18/2008 8:24:35 PM EDT

[#40]

You should have the option to not pay taxes either, but if you don't pay, you can't vote.

I whole heartedly believe that if you are not a productive member of society, you should not have any influence upon that society. It would either cut down on the people who leached off of the state because they would want to have a say where the nation was headed, or they would not be able to force productive members of society to provide them their income out of their own pockets.

Posted: 1/19/2008 10:44:11 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Bad idea... Our rights should not be taken away by the government. They are INALIENABLE for a reason....[://

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...I don't see voting on there. Montesquieu, who was highly esteemed by the Founding Fathers, showed us in his Reasons for the Fall of the Roman Empire that expansion of the voting base is always a move toward the dissolution of a republic.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is part of the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

Posted: 1/19/2008 10:45:37 AM EDT

[#42]

Does this voting restrictionn include all government employees and employees of corporations where the majority of their revenue comes from government contracts?

Posted: 1/19/2008 10:48:03 AM EDT

[#43]

Great idea but it'll never happen

Posted: 1/19/2008 10:48:19 AM EDT

[#44]

People vote according to self-interest (for example, most people here vote for pro-2A candidates).

People of the dole have been learning they can vote themselves money, which is confiscated from productive people by the .gov.

I say if you are taking and not contributing, you should have no right to say what gets done with the money I earn.

Posted: 1/19/2008 10:53:36 AM EDT

[#45]

Good idea? What the fuck?

This is America. If you don't understand that statement, then leave.

Posted: 1/19/2008 10:57:21 AM EDT

[#46]

gun control, voting control... same thing. would it be ok if they took the guns away from the people on welfare? never let them take away a constitutional right to anything. it just opens the door to other things.

Posted: 1/19/2008 10:58:20 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Good idea? What the fuck?

This is America. If you don't understand that statement, then leave.

Emotional. Check.

Posted: 1/19/2008 11:02:30 AM EDT

[#48]

I'd be happy with just honest elections with 1 vote per person, and no dead people voting.

Posted: 1/19/2008 11:06:13 AM EDT

[#49]

Bad idea. Not far off of saying that a rich person's vote should count more than a poor persons.

Posted: 1/19/2008 11:10:16 AM EDT

[#50]

Great idea. Universal voting was a huge step from being a republic to mob rule and will be our downfall.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - On welfare? No right to vote. Good idea? (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us