Reply With Quote
sons people
You get tired of people testing your beliefs, particularly when what you propose is decidedly uncons utional (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.
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?
Again, just using your words -- if you meant something different, then say it that way.
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?
Wilson and Sherman would be so happy to be relevant again. It's been a while.
Yes, a cons utional 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:
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.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.
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?
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 Cons ution 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 .
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?
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.
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.
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.
son just stick to posting pics of big tied women. politics isn't your cup of tea. god bless son.
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.
Daughters, you're just embarrassed because there is not a qualitative difference between what you spew here and what's on that video. God bless daughter.
LMAO at you and your family son
wrong, hanging them with their own words would have been him asking the questions and actually letting them answer them without the constant "DO you think he's a terrorist? Do you??" bull . His obvious attempts at making these people look stupid detracted from the very nice job they were doing at it themselves. Far more effective to actually let people "hang themselves with their own words" than to try and force the issue.
God bless you daughter. Do you agree with the views expressed in the video? Of course you do. At the end of the day, you're small and it sucks to be you, and you know it.
If they don't want to look stupid, then they could've said "No, I don't think he's a terrorist," or "No, I don't think he pals around with terrorists, I simply don't agree with his policy positions and think McCain would make a better president."
Don't blame the messenger for letting these people expose themselves for the fools that they are.
I'm saying that for an attempt at painting McCain/Palin supporters as idiots, the video was poorly executed. I'm saying it would have been much more effective if he'd just let them answer like idiots instead of trying to force the subject.
Of course, I do hope you realize this video is just that, an attempt at painting the whole McCain/Palin base as being ignorant and stupid. I often wonder who's dumber, the people being depicted in this video, or the people that actually believe them to be representative of McCain's entire base... something to ponder.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions