sons people should not be allowed to vote IF ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

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.

---

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

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.

Good to know.

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

:lmao

FWDT is too stupid for WC and BRHornets tastes.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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?

---

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.

---

did your mother vote when you were on welfare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Great idea. Perhaps we should consider letting them count only as 3/5ths of a vote.

---

Ah, finally...a strict Constitutionalist.
:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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?

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You say all this after I specifically say how I feel about these things. Besides, not all loans are subsidized.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Do you think you are smart by assigning what I mean rather than ask?

---

Again, just using your words -- if you meant something different, then say it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Wild Cobra

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.

---

I'll pass your concerns for my discourse up the food chain.

sons people

What about housewives? What about people with trust funds who don't work? Priests? Disabled vets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lakaluva

Clue number two...

---

Wilson and Sherman would be so happy to be relevant again. It's been a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

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?

----snip---

---

Yes, a constitutional amendment is necessary to satisfy the 'poll tax' clause.

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:

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Tully365

What about housewives? What about people with trust funds who don't work? Priests? Disabled vets?

---

If you're asking me, all them would be able to vote if it were up to me.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ocotillo

---

yikes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ocotillo

---

LMAO. I hate people who have to make their point by yelling it like the dumb blonde bitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

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.

---

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 baseline bum

LMAO. I hate people who have to make their point by yelling it like the dumb blonde bitch.

---

Especially when it's really not much of a point at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Especially when it's really not much of a point at all.

---

Give her a break. She's known who Sarah Palin is for three years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

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?

---

I said "many", not "all".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ocotillo

---

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 MaNuMaNiAc

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.

---

exactly son. thanks for speaking the truth. something that is rare on this liberal dominated board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BRHornet45

exactly son. thanks for speaking the truth. something that is rare on this liberal dominated board.

---

son just stick to posting pics of big tittied women. politics isn't your cup of tea. god bless son.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

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.

---

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.

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.