Should welfare recipients be able to vote?

[Lonestar_logic]

This thread is another fine example of how the Republicans are making their party of less and less consequence come elections time.

People like you kaz are fuking nuts. Thank you for making the Dems job so easy.

Easy like it was in the 2012 midterms?


You people are stupid.

 

[Seawytch]

This thread is another fine example of how the Republicans are making their party of less and less consequence come elections time.

People like you kaz are fuking nuts. Thank you for making the Dems job so easy.

Easy like it was in the 2012 midterms?


You people are stupid.

(oh the irony) Of course you mean the 2010 midterms don't you?

 

[kaz]

Voting is indeed a Constitutional right:

No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.

B. A. REYNOLDS, etc., et al., Appellants, v. M. O. SIMS et al. David J. VANN and Robert S. Vance, Appellants, v. Agnes BAGGETT, Secretary of State of Alabama et al. John W. McCONNELL, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Agnes BAGGETT, Secretary of State of |

I like how you cite an opinion, not the Constitution. Fail. Show where in the Constitution it says there is a right to vote.

 

[kaz]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

This is why you people fit the classification of "Pieces of Shit." You scream about patriotism and people's rights under the Constitution but it is all just a show. You would shred the Constitution if you had a chance and turn this country into a dictatorship.
The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution.Section 1. 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Bottom line, IF THEY ARE A CITIZEN THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE <PERIOD> Oh, and by the way, only a total idiot and fool would call Social Security welfare.

Thank you sir! I like a good vent even if it doesn't make any sense...

 

[kaz]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

When does the sacred right of voting (which isn't actually a Constitutional right), stop being more important than people voting for who promises them the most leading to our financial destruction? Why should people living on the public tab be able to keep putting us back in this position when their voting for those promising them more and more and more of other people's money is such a clear conflict of interest?

1. Why should a defense contractor be able to vote for someone who promises more defense spending?

Good question. My answer would be that if they bid competitively for it, then I don't see the issue. If it's an earmark, then I agree with you, that is welfare and every owner of the company should be prevented from voting. Then again I would put every congressman who ever votes for an earmark in jail for armed robbery as well, since that's exactly what earmarks are.

2. Why should anyone who is or ever will be eligible for Medicare be able to vote, since 40% of Medicare is paid for with funds other than the payroll tax?

If people get medicare, then they should not be able to vote for one year. If they are eligible and don't take it or "will be eligible" then I don't get it, they didn't take welfare. It is the act of taking money confiscated at gunpoint from one citizen and giving it to another which has to stop, and the people who receive the money are responsible just like the criminals in government who commit armed robbery on their behalf. Which is why allowing them to vote for people promising to commit armed robbery for them is just wrong.

3. Why should anyone who has anything to gain financially, for that matter, be allowed to vote for any candidate who might work in favor of any such gain for that voter?

To vague. Make a specific proposal.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

When does the sacred right of voting (which isn't actually a Constitutional right), stop being more important than people voting for who promises them the most leading to our financial destruction? Why should people living on the public tab be able to keep putting us back in this position when their voting for those promising them more and more and more of other people's money is such a clear conflict of interest?

In other words, people who disagree with you and your slant should not be allowed to vote?

God help us.

 

[Michelle420]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Yes they should be allowed to vote.

 

[kaz]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

When does the sacred right of voting (which isn't actually a Constitutional right), stop being more important than people voting for who promises them the most leading to our financial destruction? Why should people living on the public tab be able to keep putting us back in this position when their voting for those promising them more and more and more of other people's money is such a clear conflict of interest?

In other words, people who disagree with you and your slant should not be allowed to vote?

God help us.

Non-sequitur. Any interest in addressing the point I did make or are you just going to deflect?

 

[g5000]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Should people who take tax deductions be allowed to vote? You are forcing other people to pay higher taxes. You are living on someone else's money.

 

[nodoginnafight]

When does the sacred right of voting (which isn't actually a Constitutional right), stop being more important than people voting for who promises them the most leading to our financial destruction? Why should people living on the public tab be able to keep putting us back in this position when their voting for those promising them more and more and more of other people's money is such a clear conflict of interest?

In other words, people who disagree with you and your slant should not be allowed to vote?

God help us.

Non-sequitur. Any interest in addressing the point I did make or are you just going to deflect?

It speaks DIRECTLY to your point. Not my fault you don't understand

When does the sacred right of voting (which isn't actually a Constitutional right), stop being more important than people voting for who promises them the most leading to our financial destruction?

That could be intepreted as reffering to people who vote Republican or Democrat. You are obviously requiring everyone to agree with you on the culprits so as to eliminate their supporters from voting.

 

[kaz]

It's a clear conflict of interest. They are not stakeholders when they are taking and not giving, and their voting reflects it. They should not be able to vote. Two clarifications:

1) I am talking about all forms of welfare, including social security and medicare. You are living on someone else's money, it's welfare.

2) I am only not allowing them to vote for one year after they take a welfare check. Once they become a full citizen who is a stakeholder in our country again, they get to vote again.

Should people who take tax deductions be allowed to vote? You are forcing other people to pay higher taxes. You are living on someone else's money.

Yes comrade, because all money is the people's money. Not taking someone's money is the same as giving money to them.

If you're a Marxist, that's cool, but why does the term bother you people so much when it accurately describes your views?

 

[kaz]

In other words, people who disagree with you and your slant should not be allowed to vote?

God help us.

Non-sequitur. Any interest in addressing the point I did make or are you just going to deflect?

It speaks DIRECTLY to your point. Not my fault you don't understand

When does the sacred right of voting (which isn't actually a Constitutional right), stop being more important than people voting for who promises them the most leading to our financial destruction?

That could be intepreted as reffering to people who vote Republican or Democrat. You are obviously requiring everyone to agree with you on the culprits so as to eliminate their supporters from voting.

So the only people who disagree with me are people on welfare. Got it.