Printable View
- if they are unemployed
- if they are living off of the government via welfare, housing, etc.
- if they make LESS than $10,000 per year.
After all sons. what are these people doing for the country anyways other than living off of other peoples tax dollars??? cause God knows 95% of them will vote for Democrats to give them MORE irresponsibility ... if they even vote at all. amen. thanks sons god bless.
well people shout not be allowed to post here if they have IQ under 50. but you're still here...
Get a constitutional convention going and you're well on your way to having the facism you seek.Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
Abusing "democracy"....facism....ehhh it's all good.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
This sounds like a thread TPark would post.
http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/o...utyoass2_2.gif
Keep the poor people down and shackled huh?
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by InRareForm
As for preachers, that guy's the best!
BR, I'm not with you on most of your ideas. I find thm a bit extreme. I agree with this one however. I am sick and tired of people voting for those who promise them my money.
So you're opposed to socialism but you support fascism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Heckuva post, BRHornet45. You're my kind of people.
Great idea. Perhaps we should consider letting them count only as 3/5ths of a vote.
even money says he doesn't get itQuote:
Originally Posted by timvp
LMAO go watch COPS and tell me those people should get the same vote as you.
Dems prey on a certain type of people by promising them certain types of things. But fuck it, what can you do.
Most Amerikans can't even balance their check book.Quote:
Originally Posted by lakaluva
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti.Hero
LMAO good one son. most of the blind sheep on this message board will not understand this because Bill Maher tells them otherwise.
I'd challenge Maher to a duel IRL. He's got SMS so I'm pretty sure he'd accept.
Why make the floor $10,000? I mean, it's abundantly clear that the people who are most responsible in this country are those who make the most money and, undoubtedly, those people should have the most say about who will be President. Why not make it a $50,000 threshold, or better yet, only allow voting by those who make $100,000 a year!!
Plus, I think the unemployed thing sweeps too broadly -- it would be silly to deny the vote to rich people who are unemployed!!!
son your missing the point. people who make less than $10,000 a year (who "work" full time ala not college students, etc.) contribute next to nothing to society. why should their opinion count whenever they pay what? $200 a year in taxes? oh and when I say the "unemployed" I mean the people who fall into the "living off of the government" category. I should have been more clear on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by timvp
How about $10,100?Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
son good question. hell I would even raise it to $15,000 a year! BUT if it was $10,000 and they made $10,100, then technically yes. god bless son.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
So contributions to society are only measured in terms of how much someone pays in taxes? Why on Earth would anyone oppose a tax increase then, since paying more taxes would demonstrate a greater contribution to society!!Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
But in any event, I suppose you'd argue that a nun or a monk, for instance, shouldn't be allowed to vote?
no problem son! keep working hard at McDonalds with JoeChadildoboy and you two will be making $15,000 a year in no time!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Correct
Why are they allowed to vote anyways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
FWDT, I'd like my injunction filed and SUPERSIZED, boy.
I notice you're conveniently skipping timvp's suggestion.
Every American of voting age has the right to vote. Income or educational level does not place any more weight on a vote. My vote counts the same as Warren Buffett's.
Go USA!!
Actually, there's brilliance in this idea from the standpoint of social policy, too. Obviously, those who don't work but carry substantial tax burdens -- say the stay-at-home spouses of highly-paid executives -- should be allowed to vote under this plan. So combined incomes are sufficient to give one the right to vote. Thus, imposing the $10,000 threshold would encourage those who make very little money to get married to one another and aggregate their meager incomes to obtain the right to vote -- lessen they're homosexuals or something, of course.
It's social brilliance.
that's because, not surprisingly, he didn't get it. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Blaze_47
You want fries with that? Maybe a pie?Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Let's add those who get their news from talk radio.Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
In triplicate.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I wouldn't actually want it just like BR explained, but I have advocated a similar thing myself. I don't know exactly where to make the cutoffs, but maybe something like the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
1) To be eligeble to vote, you cannot be one who gets subsidies from the various government agencies over the last two years that exceed what income taxes you pay over the same period.
2) Social Security and other retirement related entitlements are not considered subsidies for voting purposes. Social Security will actually be treated as income for voting elegibility.
3) The right to vote will not be denied to the handicapped under this provision.
4) Non tax paying citizens have the right to vote as long as they are not being subsidized by the government.
5) Paymnts of Social Security and Medicare deductions are not considered taxes for these rules as they are for future benifits.
My thoughts on the subject are simply to exclude those who chose government handouts over paying their own way from voting. The rules I would support would be to those means.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...0W-JwD93FT48G0
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...0W-JwD93FT48G0
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...0W-JwD93FT48G0
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...0W-JwD93FT48G0
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...0W-JwD93FT48G0
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...0W-JwD93FT48G0
The dems get away with raping democracy because they have brain washed Amerika into this political correctness bafoonery. It's a brilliant move.
Do bailed out Wall Street executives get treated as having been subsidized by the government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What about those who have federally-subsidized student loans and are working low paying jobs? I know people who make plenty of money, but whose federally-subsidized student loan debt exceeds their income at this moment -- are you going to prohibit them from voting?
How about government subsidized industries, like Agriculture?Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
BRHornets45 just posted a great video on youtube explaining her views on the upcoming election:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs&
What happened to the youtube embed code? It's not working for me
Don't forget people who are layed off and are receiving workers compensation.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
You want fries with that? Maybe a pie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Blaze_47
You want fries with that? Maybe a pie?
You want fries with that? Maybe a pie?
That will be $651.17, sir. Please drive up.
Those are EXACTLY the sorts of people we don't want voting -- unless they happen to be wealthy through other means, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
I tried posting that video using the same coding format and it didn't work. Are you using firefox or IE?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shastafarian
you left in the entire urlQuote:
Originally Posted by Findog
Ah, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shastafarian
Man, BRHornets45 is hot! I find her views trenchant and insightful:
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Shastafarian
np I was gonna quote you but I wanted to get the video up right after your post. Looks like I failed :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Findog
If this were a fight, it'd have been stopped by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
In other words, fuck young people and make exceptions for the old. Someone's old enough to go and die for his country out of high school, but he can't be trusted to make an intelligent vote if he chooses to educate himself.
no son its because your too stupid to read and learn the codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Findog
BRHornets45, I think you are so sexy after watching that video! I love those glasses you wear and the way you enunciate "A-rab!"Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
Are you talking about loans or grants?Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
A loan is not a subsidy. A grant is. My whole point is that we have voters who have a financial stake in who they put in office over those who want to take from the government. I would be open to school grant recipiants voting. But not those who are chonically on welfare type programs.
What I gave was a very basic outline. Take my purpose over any specific numbered item because the list of exceptions and reasons to deny voting would end up being rather long.
Yes, it worked out so well when only white male property owners could vote. How very 18th-centuryish of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You're going at it from the wrong angle son.
Income should not matter.
A basic test to prove you know the current political theater would suffice.
did your mom vote when you were on welfare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
How much do soldiers make in a year?
A significant portion of student loans are federally-subsidized. Since you're such a stickler for the meaning of words, I figured when you said subsidies you meant subsidies, which would include federally-subsidized student loans. If you aggregate the amount of subsidized student loan debt that many young professionals have and compare it with their average tax burdens, it becomes fairly obvious that young professionals and others who must borrow money to attend college are simply not welcome to vote in your America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Good to know.
hey wold cobra, did your mom vote when you were on welfare?
So the pigs want to make some animals more equal than others.
Shocking.
Just wait until they realize one of their own is plotting against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by CubanMustGo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti.Hero
Fascists or people who see the country slipping away to the have-nots? Which in reality means, government pigs using illusion to just gain more power.
So, who would decide if you know 'enough'? What would 'suffice'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti.Hero
More irresponsibility is teh sux.Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
is wild cobra going to abandon this thread without answering the question?
I laughed.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Heartily.
We should just move all of the nation's polling places several miles outside of the 'hood. And make sure they're not located on a bus route.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
what's the point? the dude is so stupid, it would be pointless. I mean, I could say "Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3" and the jackass would still be clueless as to what the "3/5ths of all other persons" is referring to :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by lakaluva
Well, here is the pay chart effective January 2006:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shastafarian
Military Pay Charts
I don't know if they got a pay raise for 2007 and 2008. Probably not with the democrats running congress. Annually, it varies allot. If you figure a new recruit at E2 pay for 1 year, living in the barracks, no family, figure $17,128.80 plus clothing alloance, free food, free living accomodations. Not a bad pay for having all your basic living expenses paid for. It is all, after tax, your money to do as you please. Soldiers with dependance and/or who live off base get paid more.
I left with 11 years of service as an E-5 when I left in 1992, my base pay was $1430 monthly if I remember right. Today, it would be $2496.60 by the 2006 chart. Base pay is all that military personel pay taxes on. Housing allowence would probably be about $1200 here I live with COLA, Separate Rations $272.35, clothing allowence probably about $25.
hard to say, but when I left in 1992, I figured I needed a job that paid just over $18 per hour to have the same net pay after taxes. It took me a few years before I was making more after tax money than I did in the service.
You know, I get real discouraged communicating with people like you, who either don't understand, or purposely twist what is said. I would not disallow someone taking out a loan from voting. I don't know all the nuances involved in a student loan being backed by the govornment, but what little subsidy is involved, is in the reduction of the interest rate, and insuring it. Am I right or wrong? The money is expected to be paid back with interest, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
You say all this after I specifically say how I feel about these things. Besides, not all loans are subsidized.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Do you think you are smart by assigning what I mean rather than ask?
I find that really stupid. In fact, if I were an employer, people who made business decisions like what you just illistrated would be history. Is that how you think at your job? If so, I feel sorry for your employer.
:lmao
FWDT is too stupid for WC and BRHornets tastes.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
did your mother vote when you were on welfare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
did your mother vote when you were on welfare?Quote:
You say all this after I specifically say how I feel about these things. Besides, not all loans are subsidized.
Do you think you are smart by assigning what I mean rather than ask?
did your mother vote when you were on welfare?Quote:
I find that really stupid. In fact, if I were an employer, people who made business decisions like what you just illistrated would be history. Is that how you think at your job? If so, I feel sorry for your employer.
Ah, finally...a strict Constitutionalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
:lol
You get tired of people testing your beliefs, particularly when what you propose is decidedly unconstitutional (though I suppose that you're favoring an amendment that would specifically spell out what qualifies someone to vote) and strikes me as unnecessarily (and unfairly) discriminatory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It seems to me that one way to test your position is to question it by citing to an example that would seem distasteful to you. And here, I've done that by using your specific words -- here, "subsidy." You said very specifically that:
"To be eligeble to vote, you cannot be one who gets subsidies from the various government agencies over the last two years that exceed what income taxes you pay over the same period."
You made no distinction about which subsidies would qualify, you said subsidies. My point has been that student loans are federally subsidized and, thus, would fall within your definition concerning voting eligibility. If you misstated what you meant -- if you meant to exclude student loans from your definition -- then correct your statement.
Of course, the problem with doing that is that you're no longer painting with the broad brush that saves you from the socio-political ramifications of your position.
Not all loans are subsidized, true. But many are. And many people who do quite well in this country have subsidized student loan debt that exceeds their tax burdens. Now, I'll grant you that the "within two years" part of your definition might actually save student loans in some instances from disqualifying an individual to vote, but there's no doubt that most students who are within 2 years of graduation will have benefitted from substantial subsidies while not having paid much if any taxes. It seems clear to me that based on your own stated definition (without revision) you're disqualifying those people from voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I also wonder how far down the political food chain your prohibition goes. Should those who don't meet your economic criteria be precluded from voting on local races or initiatives that don't have anything to do with economics?
Again, just using your words -- if you meant something different, then say it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'll pass your concerns for my discourse up the food chain.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Wild Cobra
sons people
What about housewives? What about people with trust funds who don't work? Priests? Disabled vets?
Wilson and Sherman would be so happy to be relevant again. It's been a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by lakaluva
Yes, a constitutional amendment is necessary to satisfy the 'poll tax' clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I do tire of my beliefs being tested when it is done in such manners. I tire of people taking the extreme on what I don't specify, and otherwise do their best to make me look bad. I tire of people purposely assuming things that don't exist in my words. I tire of being told what I believe rather than being asked to elaborate, especially when the person doing so is wrong.
Keep in mind, in an earlier posting I said this:
I simply do not believe people should vote who do not try to contribute to our nation and society. I do not want people to vote who elect politicians who redistribute wealth. It's nothing but legal thievery. I am all for helping those who are disabled, but I get very pissed when people want to elect those to take my money and give to them, when they are able bodied and can work.Quote:
What I gave was a very basic outline. Take my purpose over any specific numbered item because the list of exceptions and reasons to deny voting would end up being rather long.
If you're asking me, all them would be able to vote if it were up to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully365
BRHornet...
If I make less than $10,000 per year at my legitimate job but pull down over $10,000 per week in my double life as a dealer of illicit drugs, am I allowed to vote or not?
yikesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ocotillo
Regarding the original question; their is a significant difference between an 18 year old in 2008, and one in 1787, in terms of their personal responsibility, would be vastly different. The average 18 year old when the Constitution was written was more than likely out on their own, making their own way - an adult. That is not the case now. I know, at 18, I was pretty ignorant, and very unwise. My political views changed with who my favorite professor was at the time (semester to semester).
Of course, maybe a dose of youthful idealism is a good thing in the electorate.
LMAO. I hate people who have to make their point by yelling it like the dumb blonde bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocotillo
Does that mean at 18 someone can't be tried as an adult, because they're not yet responsible enough to be one? No more 18 year-olds going to war since they're still just kids who can be easily exploited?Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Especially when it's really not much of a point at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Give her a break. She's known who Sarah Palin is for three years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Findog
I said "many", not "all".Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Just thoughts.
We were talking specifically about voting. If an 18 year old behaves like an adult; they could vote. Could use whether they are declared as a dependent on their daddy's tax return as a litmus test. Yes, that could mean older people not voting, as well.
Again, just for discussion's sake. This is just academic.
I'm sure there's a video out there of Obama supporters being stupid as well. Videos like these are useless, specially when made by a jackass who's only agenda is to ridicule the people he is interviewing. When are people going to realize that it is far more effective to let people ridicule themselves than to try and force the issue. The dude should have just asked a couple of questions and let the people answer them without his idiotic interruptions. I'm willing to bet he would have come out with much better footage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocotillo
exactly son. thanks for speaking the truth. something that is rare on this liberal dominated board.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc
son just stick to posting pics of big tittied women. politics isn't your cup of tea. god bless son.Quote:
Originally Posted by BRHornet45
It's called hanging them with their own words. He didn't put a gun to their heads and make them say "Obama is a terrorist" or "Obama associates with terorrists" or "He has the bloodlines" to be associated with terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc
I like that one dude who says that from ages 1 to 6 Obama was immersed in radical Islam. I'm pretty sure that at the time, Obama was playing with his toys in a sandbox.