[quote]cyph31 wrote:
anyone have some youtube videos handy of morons from the bible belt ?[/quote]
Well, video footage of liberals in those parts is rare, but I’m sure you could find some on google. I need my own laugh track.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
vroom wrote:
The problem with using something other than age for deciding who can vote is the problem of coming up with reasonable criteria that people can agree on.
It also ends up being pretty elitist, which seems to be pretty unpopular these days…
I don’t believe anybody drawing a supporting level of public funds should be allowed to vote more of the productive citizens income into their own pockets. As a meager start.
Yes I am also vehemently opposed to any positive payouts to corporations as well and would end that forthwith were it in my power.
Of course where defense is concerned, which is a constitutional mandate, it gets more complicated. In any case no citizen with a public livelihood should be allowed to vote until such time as they are self sufficient. [/quote]
x2
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t believe anybody drawing a supporting level of public funds should be allowed to vote more of the productive citizens income into their own pockets. As a meager start. [/quote]
By supporting level, do you mean someone that gets the majority of their income from public funds?
[quote]
Of course where defense is concerned, which is a constitutional mandate, it gets more complicated. In any case no citizen with a public livelihood should be allowed to vote until such time as they are self sufficient. [/quote]
I think I may be misunderstanding this last paragraph. Are saying members of the military should not be allowed to vote?
EDIT: I’m an idiot. I misread that last paragraph.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Democracy and freedom are two different concepts. Is a farmer who toils in the field and has no one ever tell him what to do or takes his labor not free? By the same token, how free was the Iraqi citizen who voted for Saddam in the 90’s? We have this disease of egalitarianism in this country that is the direct enemy of liberty. Near universal democracy will take us down the road of ruin and it is the result of our love with egalitarianism. At this point we may as well allow children to vote. Why don’t we? Because they’re kids who aren’t knowledgeable nor trustworthy to vote responsibly. Why then do we let adults who have no idea what they’re voting for step into the ballot box?
mike[/quote]
As nice as all this sounds what your saying(in a nutshell) is that all the ppl who are rich, educated and good upstanding citizens that vote Democrat or Republican for no other reason than the nominee is a Democrat or Republican should not get a vote? The women who go to vote and vote for a nominee just b/c that person is a women should not get a vote? Or someone is just dumb as a box of rocks?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
No high school diploma means that you are unqualified for most jobs. In the same way, it should disqualify you from voting.
[/quote]
How dose not having a High School diploma disqualify someone? What about the farmers, mechanics, construction workers, plumbers and the rest of the ppl that you and me cant live with out, who may not be educated in school but are self taught and are as smart as any one of us? Fuck what is a HS diploma worth any way? Hell a BS isnt hardly worth shit anymore, so how about only ppl with a masters can vote?
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t believe anybody drawing a supporting level of public funds should be allowed to vote more of the productive citizens income into their own pockets. As a meager start.
By supporting level, do you mean someone that gets the majority of their income from public funds?[/quote]
I mean someone who could not maintain a dwelling or other necessities otherwise so basically, yes.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Of course where defense is concerned, which is a constitutional mandate, it gets more complicated. In any case no citizen with a public livelihood should be allowed to vote until such time as they are self sufficient.
I think I may be misunderstanding this last paragraph. Are saying members of the military should not be allowed to vote?
EDIT: I’m an idiot. I misread that last paragraph.[/quote]
I meant that national defense is a concept that is actually called for in the founding documents (imagine that?) so the payment of public funds to companies who produce in that area as well salaries for the personnel is lawful, but anytime that arrangement exists there also exists much opportunity for corruption so care and utterly transparent accountability for every dollar must be maintained. Influence peddling is always right around the corner.
EDIT: Oh yeah, no I would never say that citizens who might get their asses shot off in defense of this nation should not be allowed to vote.
[quote]vroom wrote:
LOL @ Obama[/quote]
fixed
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t believe anybody drawing a supporting level of public funds should be allowed to vote more of the productive citizens income into their own pockets. As a meager start.
Yes I am also vehemently opposed to any positive payouts to corporations as well and would end that forthwith were it in my power.
Of course where defense is concerned, which is a constitutional mandate, it gets more complicated. In any case no citizen with a public livelihood should be allowed to vote until such time as they are self sufficient.
This is the whole crux of the Obama campaign and if he wins it will not be because of “change” or the war in Iraq or the economic crisis. It will be because just enough people who want something for nothing will vote for him - greedy little bastards with their hand out asking Big Brother to gimme, gimme, gimme.
You can bet that the stupid morons in the youtube video of the OP don’t pay taxes and/or contribute to building a strong country. You can bet that the typical 18 - 29 year old whose voting demographic is overwhelmingly predicted to vote Obama contribute much either.
It’s the tit suckers who will give him the win if indeed he does get it.[/quote]
I believe you are correct. Social programs are about creating dependency and by extension loyal voters. Anybody who does not see that has their head so far up their ass they’d need to unzip their fly to see.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For all of his (self perceived) intellectual prowess, Vroom still does not understand the concepts of democracy and republics and constitutional republics and the differences thereof.
Therefore, I hereby move to disenfranchise Vroom.[/quote]
LOL. I’ve never said I was smart, just opinionated. Shut up and vote!
[quote]Demiajax wrote:
Stupidity is everywhere.
23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/poll-percent-texans-believe-obama-muslim/
[/quote]
Absolutely right. Even Obama doesn’t know he’s not a Muslim:
