Should Welfare Recipients Be Allowed To Vote?

[Publius1787]

No, somehow I don't think I have any need to jump in and show how stupid you are.

I have no idea what "guied" means, but being in the political majority or minority in your beliefs has nothing to do with your willingness to address facts or your mastery of the English language.

Weve been over this. the smiley says it all!

The smiley bugs you, does it?

So sorry.

You see, the board has a list of smileys for posters to use as they please.

And I happen to like 'em.

It detracts nothing from the facts or logic of my statements.

It merely adds a bit of levity and a visual break to an otherwise dry topic that a fair number of people seem to be following.

That's assuming the number of views on the thread is any indication of people actually following, of course.

So....you might as well get used to the fact that people will use the tools of the board as they see fit.

Not as YOU demand.

I never demanded anything. I just told you what they mean. Just as there is body language there is writing language. Just as words have meaning our chosen actions do as well. In reference to your smileys I nailed it spot on!

 

[Publius1787]

You don't read links either, I see. Voting is a right. Under the 14th Amendment it is classified as a fundamental right of liberty which, once given, cannot be taken away without due process of law and to which equal protection applies.

That's very basic 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you ever read the whole 14th Amendment? The 14th Amendment is in fact an admission that the States can descided who votes and who does not! It only punishes the states for denying the vote through less representation. But it does not take away the right of the States to choose who votes! Besides, if the right to vote was a liberty guarenteed under the 14th Amendment than there would be no need for the 15th, 19th, or the 24th amendments wich are also admissions that the States can deny the privilage of voting on whatever bacis they want except thoes exceptions. I know the 14th Amendment inside and out, from the debates in congress to the ratification by the states.


Section 2 of the 14th Amendment:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either, I see.

Oooooh, you're going to be fun!

Exactly what I am trying to prove about you! READ IT! Then tell me where I went wrong. You cant. Thats why you result to personal attacks. Jokes on you now ... that is ..... if you ever read it. Dont worry though. Most people (like yourself) dont read the 14th Amendment past the first section. It happens.

 

[goldcatt]

Weve been over this. the smiley says it all!

The smiley bugs you, does it?

So sorry.

You see, the board has a list of smileys for posters to use as they please.

And I happen to like 'em.

It detracts nothing from the facts or logic of my statements.

It merely adds a bit of levity and a visual break to an otherwise dry topic that a fair number of people seem to be following.

That's assuming the number of views on the thread is any indication of people actually following, of course.

So....you might as well get used to the fact that people will use the tools of the board as they see fit.

Not as YOU demand.

I never demanded anything. I just told you what they mean. Just as theer is body language there is writing language. Just as words have meaning our chosen actions do as well. In reference to your smileys I nailed it spot on!

Yeah, about that writing language thing.....oy.

 

[goldcatt]

Thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you ever read the whole 14th Amendment? The 14th Amendment is in fact an admission that the States can descided who votes and who does not! It only punishes the states for denying the vote through less representation. But it does not take away the right of the States to choose who votes! Besides, if the right to vote was a liberty guarenteed under the 14th Amendment than there would be no need for the 15th, 19th, or the 24th amendments wich are also admissions that the States can deny the privilage of voting on whatever bacis they want except thoes exceptions. I know the 14th Amendment inside and out, from the debates in congress to the ratification by the states.


Section 2 of the 14th Amendment:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either, I see.

Oooooh, you're going to be fun!

Exactly what I am trying to prove about you! READ IT! Then tell me where I went wrong. You cant. Thats why you result to personal attacks. Jokes on you now ... that is ..... if you ever read it. Dont worry though. Most people (like yourself) dont read the 14th Amendment past the first section. It happens.

Dude, I've read the 14th Amendment. More times than I can count.

I know its purpose and history. I also know what you don't, which is its application and jurisprudence since it was ratified, how is works in the real world and the facts surrounding DP/EP issues in modern times.

Agree or disagree with 14th Amendment application and jurisprudence all you want, but turning a blind eye to it then trying to debate something that's happening today rather than 150 years ago is foolish.

 

[Publius1787]

The smiley bugs you, does it?

So sorry.

You see, the board has a list of smileys for posters to use as they please.

And I happen to like 'em.

It detracts nothing from the facts or logic of my statements.

It merely adds a bit of levity and a visual break to an otherwise dry topic that a fair number of people seem to be following.

That's assuming the number of views on the thread is any indication of people actually following, of course.

So....you might as well get used to the fact that people will use the tools of the board as they see fit.

Not as YOU demand.

I never demanded anything. I just told you what they mean. Just as theer is body language there is writing language. Just as words have meaning our chosen actions do as well. In reference to your smileys I nailed it spot on!

Yeah, about that writing language thing.....oy.

Yeah. How about you stick to the argument at hand? Or are you going to continue to show me just how wrong you are by strictly attacking my spelling without provided a single fact to refute my arguements?

 

[Publius1787]

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either, I see.

Oooooh, you're going to be fun!

Exactly what I am trying to prove about you! READ IT! Then tell me where I went wrong. You cant. Thats why you result to personal attacks. Jokes on you now ... that is ..... if you ever read it. Dont worry though. Most people (like yourself) dont read the 14th Amendment past the first section. It happens.

Dude, I've read the 14th Amendment. More times than I can count.

I know its purpose and history. I also know what you don't, which is its application and jurisprudence since it was ratified, how is works in the real world and the facts surrounding DP/EP issues in modern times.

Agree or disagree with 14th Amendment application and jurisprudence all you want, but turning a blind eye to it then trying to debate something that's happening today rather than 150 years ago is foolish.

So what do you think this means? PPPPPLLLEEEAAASSSEEEE!!!! I want you on the record saying it! Please explain section 2 to me. If the states cannot deny the vote to anyone, with the exceptions of thoes groups stated in the other amendments, then how do you explain this?

From the 14th Ameendment: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Furthermore, if the 14th Amendment gives everyone the right to vote then how do you explain the need for the other voting amendments and how do you explain that the 14th amendment only refers to males voting? Government do not grant rights and voting is a privilage!

 

[goldcatt]

I never demanded anything. I just told you what they mean. Just as theer is body language there is writing language. Just as words have meaning our chosen actions do as well. In reference to your smileys I nailed it spot on!

Yeah, about that writing language thing.....oy.

Yeah. How about you stick to the argument at hand? Or are you going to continue to show me just how wrong you are by strictly attacking my spelling without provided a single fact to refute my arguements?

Hypocritical too.

You were provided with facts, you ignored them. You were provided with links, you didn't read them. I'm not chasing my tail trying to convince you when you're just going to stick your fingers in your ears. I've just had too much coffee to crash and you're too much fun not to mess with.

If you don't like it, feel free to stop fighting for the last word anytime.

 

[Publius1787]

Yeah, about that writing language thing.....oy.

Yeah. How about you stick to the argument at hand? Or are you going to continue to show me just how wrong you are by strictly attacking my spelling without provided a single fact to refute my arguements?

Hypocritical too.

You were provided with facts, you ignored them. You were provided with links, you didn't read them. I'm not chasing my tail trying to convince you when you're just going to stick your fingers in your ears. I've just had too much coffee to crash and you're too much fun not to mess with.

If you don't like it, feel free to stop fighting for the last word anytime.

I cannot wait to hear your explanation for this one >>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3206715-post166.html You may think that making accusations and placing smilies will bail you out of a losing arguement but it wont work with me.

 

[goldcatt]

Exactly what I am trying to prove about you! READ IT! Then tell me where I went wrong. You cant. Thats why you result to personal attacks. Jokes on you now ... that is ..... if you ever read it. Dont worry though. Most people (like yourself) dont read the 14th Amendment past the first section. It happens.

Dude, I've read the 14th Amendment. More times than I can count.

I know its purpose and history. I also know what you don't, which is its application and jurisprudence since it was ratified, how is works in the real world and the facts surrounding DP/EP issues in modern times.

Agree or disagree with 14th Amendment application and jurisprudence all you want, but turning a blind eye to it then trying to debate something that's happening today rather than 150 years ago is foolish.

So what do you think this means? PPPPPLLLEEEAAASSSEEEE!!!! I want you on the record saying it! Please explain section 2 to me. If the states cannot deny the vote to anyone, with the exceptions of thoes groups stated in the other amendments, then how do you explain this?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Furthermore, if the 14th Amendment gives everyone the right to vote then how do you explain the need for the other voting amendments and how do you explain that the 14th amendment only refers to males voting? Government do not grant rights and voting is a privilage!

Go back and read the link to the Harper case you were given. Go back and read the post I made that started you on this harangue. The right once given cannot be taken away without due process of law, and equal protection of the laws applies.

Once given. D'oh!

Not my words, read the link. I didn't post it for my health, or for my own edification. I already know it.

The further voting amendments expanded the franchise to citizens to whom at the time the 14th was written it had not yet been given. The 14th penalizes States in Section 2 who disobey the dictates of Section 1 but grants an exception. One of these things is not like the other.

Now you have the answer to your question and have had it for some time if you'd just bothered to look at the facts presented and read the posts to which you responded.

 

[Publius1787]

Dude, I've read the 14th Amendment. More times than I can count.

I know its purpose and history. I also know what you don't, which is its application and jurisprudence since it was ratified, how is works in the real world and the facts surrounding DP/EP issues in modern times.

Agree or disagree with 14th Amendment application and jurisprudence all you want, but turning a blind eye to it then trying to debate something that's happening today rather than 150 years ago is foolish.

So what do you think this means? PPPPPLLLEEEAAASSSEEEE!!!! I want you on the record saying it! Please explain section 2 to me. If the states cannot deny the vote to anyone, with the exceptions of thoes groups stated in the other amendments, then how do you explain this?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Furthermore, if the 14th Amendment gives everyone the right to vote then how do you explain the need for the other voting amendments and how do you explain that the 14th amendment only refers to males voting? Government do not grant rights and voting is a privilage!

Go back and read the link to the Harper case you were given. Go back and read the post I made that started you on this harangue. The right once given cannot be taken away without due process of law, and equal protection of the laws applies.

Once given. D'oh!

Not my words, read the link. I didn't post it for my health, or for my own edification. I already know it.

The further voting amendments expanded the franchise to citizens to whom at the time the 14th was written it had not yet been given. The 14th penalizes States in Section 2 who disobey the dictates of Section 1 but grants an exception. One of these things is not like the other.

Now you have the answer to your question and have had it for some time if you'd just bothered to look at the facts presented and read the posts to which you responded.

HA! Section2 spells out EXACTLY who section 2 applies to and the punishment for not allowing them to vote! Your above statement is an admission that the states have the right to choose who can and cannot vote (with the exception of the restraints preformed by the other voting amendments). Why doesent Section 1 pertain to voting? Because voting is not an individual right or liberty but a privilage not afforded to such people as dictated by the states. It has always been that way and it shows the intent of the people who wrote it! In the eyes of thoes who wrote that amendment there is no contradiction! End of story! Perioud! Thats all she wrote! The states do have the authority to choose who votes and who doesent (pending they are in complience with the voting amendments). Good night!

 

[goldcatt]

So what do you think this means? PPPPPLLLEEEAAASSSEEEE!!!! I want you on the record saying it! Please explain section 2 to me. If the states cannot deny the vote to anyone, with the exceptions of thoes groups stated in the other amendments, then how do you explain this?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Furthermore, if the 14th Amendment gives everyone the right to vote then how do you explain the need for the other voting amendments and how do you explain that the 14th amendment only refers to males voting? Government do not grant rights and voting is a privilage!

Go back and read the link to the Harper case you were given. Go back and read the post I made that started you on this harangue. The right once given cannot be taken away without due process of law, and equal protection of the laws applies.

Once given. D'oh!

Not my words, read the link. I didn't post it for my health, or for my own edification. I already know it.

The further voting amendments expanded the franchise to citizens to whom at the time the 14th was written it had not yet been given. The 14th penalizes States in Section 2 who disobey the dictates of Section 1 but grants an exception. One of these things is not like the other.

Now you have the answer to your question and have had it for some time if you'd just bothered to look at the facts presented and read the posts to which you responded.

HA! Section2 spells out EXACTLY who section 2 applies to and the punishment for not allowing them to vote! Your above statement is an admission that the states have the right to choose who can and cannot vote (with the exception of the restraints preformed by the other voting amendments). Why doesent Section 1 pertain to voting? Because voting is not an individual right or liberty but a privilage not afforded to such people as dictated by the states. It has always been that way and it shows the intent of the people who wrote it! In the eyes of thoes who wrote that amendment there is no contradiction! End of story! Perioud! Thats all she wrote! The states do have the authority to choos who votes and who doesent (pending they are in complience with the voting amendments).

So after all that you STILL haven't bothered to look at the facts you demanded by reading the link provided.

You really need to change that signature of yours. Maybe a picture of an ostrich with its head in the sand?

 

[Publius1787]

Go back and read the link to the Harper case you were given. Go back and read the post I made that started you on this harangue. The right once given cannot be taken away without due process of law, and equal protection of the laws applies.

Once given. D'oh!

Not my words, read the link. I didn't post it for my health, or for my own edification. I already know it.

The further voting amendments expanded the franchise to citizens to whom at the time the 14th was written it had not yet been given. The 14th penalizes States in Section 2 who disobey the dictates of Section 1 but grants an exception. One of these things is not like the other.

Now you have the answer to your question and have had it for some time if you'd just bothered to look at the facts presented and read the posts to which you responded.

HA! Section2 spells out EXACTLY who section 2 applies to and the punishment for not allowing them to vote! Your above statement is an admission that the states have the right to choose who can and cannot vote (with the exception of the restraints preformed by the other voting amendments). Why doesent Section 1 pertain to voting? Because voting is not an individual right or liberty but a privilage not afforded to such people as dictated by the states. It has always been that way and it shows the intent of the people who wrote it! In the eyes of thoes who wrote that amendment there is no contradiction! End of story! Perioud! Thats all she wrote! The states do have the authority to choos who votes and who doesent (pending they are in complience with the voting amendments).

So after all that you STILL haven't bothered to look at the facts you demanded by reading the link provided.

You really need to change that signature of yours. Maybe a picture of an ostrich with its head in the sand?

You keep pointing to a supreme court case, which I have read, as if though the supreme court has never been wrong. Yet at the same time the descision in that case addresses none of what I have said. You can keep pointing to your case if you want but I know its only in the effort of avoiding the facts of the amendment of which the Supreme Court did not address. The 14th Amendment does not contradict itself! If it did ol Thaddeus Stevens would have certainly picked up on it!

Oh, and since you did not reply to or refute anything on my last post I will post it again.

HA! Section2 spells out EXACTLY who section 2 applies to and the punishment for not allowing them to vote! Your above statement is an admission that the states have the right to choose who can and cannot vote (with the exception of the restraints preformed by the other voting amendments). Why doesent Section 1 pertain to voting? Because voting is not an individual right or liberty but a privilage not afforded to such people as dictated by the states. It has always been that way and it shows the intent of the people who wrote it! In the eyes of thoes who wrote that amendment there is no contradiction! End of story! Perioud! Thats all she wrote! The states do have the authority to choose who votes and who doesent (pending they are in complience with the voting amendments).

 

[goldcatt]

HA! Section2 spells out EXACTLY who section 2 applies to and the punishment for not allowing them to vote! Your above statement is an admission that the states have the right to choose who can and cannot vote (with the exception of the restraints preformed by the other voting amendments). Why doesent Section 1 pertain to voting? Because voting is not an individual right or liberty but a privilage not afforded to such people as dictated by the states. It has always been that way and it shows the intent of the people who wrote it! In the eyes of thoes who wrote that amendment there is no contradiction! End of story! Perioud! Thats all she wrote! The states do have the authority to choos who votes and who doesent (pending they are in complience with the voting amendments).

So after all that you STILL haven't bothered to look at the facts you demanded by reading the link provided.

You really need to change that signature of yours. Maybe a picture of an ostrich with its head in the sand?

You keep pointing to a supreme court case, which I have read, as if though the supreme court has never been wrong. Yet at the same time the descision in that case addresses none of what I have said. You can keep pointing to your case if you want but I know its only in the effort of avoiding the facts of the amendment of which the Supreme Court did not address. The 14th Amendment does not contradict itself! If it did ol Thaddeus Stevens would have certainly picked up on it!

Oh, and since you did not reply to or refute anything on my last post I will post it again.

HA! Section2 spells out EXACTLY who section 2 applies to and the punishment for not allowing them to vote! Your above statement is an admission that the states have the right to choose who can and cannot vote (with the exception of the restraints preformed by the other voting amendments). Why doesent Section 1 pertain to voting? Because voting is not an individual right or liberty but a privilage not afforded to such people as dictated by the states. It has always been that way and it shows the intent of the people who wrote it! In the eyes of thoes who wrote that amendment there is no contradiction! End of story! Perioud! Thats all she wrote! The states do have the authority to choos who votes and who doesent (pending they are in complience with the voting amendments).

The decision in the Harper case addresses exactly the core of your argument.

It doesn't matter what the law was 200 years ago, or 150 years ago, or 100 years ago. When you want to change policy now, it matters what it is NOW. And right or wrong, agree or disagree, that case spells out the current status of the law and the recognition of the right to vote as a protected fundamental right under the 14th Amendment, complete with a list of citations for precedent to that effect going back approximately 100 years.

You may disagree with the current state of the law, but you ignore it and deny it at your peril. Learning the history is all well and good, but from a legal point of view it matters not in any context but understanding the present. That's where we live and make policy, not in some fantasyland that may or may not have existed 150 years ago.

And in the present, you are wrong. Section 2 matters not. The 6th and 5th and 17th aren't even germane. Your dismissal of the 24th is a semantic argument that isn't held up by the body of law surrounding the franchise, including but certainly not limited to Harper. And your refusal to understand that we live in the 21st Century, like it or not, blinds you to present reality.

What you propose is unconstitutional and can only happen through the Amendment process, and that idea is dead on arrival. People will not vote away their rights, and it's the kiss of death for any politician who tries to do it for them.

No, it's been fun but you really haven't needed my help in pointing out your stupidity.

Now I'm going to grant your fondest wish and let you have the last word. You're welcome.

 

[jgarden]

A Conflict of Interest?

Acting under the assumption that taxation without representation is wrong, isn’t representation without taxation wrong as well? In a time when 47% of households pay absolutely no tax at all, can we justify those who do not pay taxes to be able to vote on how much the taxpaying citizen’s pay for the services of government that we all benefit from? ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html ) .....

Let's take that argument one step further and remove the right to vote for any state that receives more money from the federal government than it contributes in taxes.

It could be argued that since they already receive more than their fair share of federal revenues, they forfeit the right to make decisions concerning the taxes of the 28 more prosperous states.

That would mean that 32 states would not vote or have representatives in Congress because they receive more federal funds than they contribute in taxes. Only 1 "red" state (Texas) would be allowed to vote during elections!

For the Democrats, this sounds like a plan!

Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill
October 9, 2007

FY 2005 RANKINGS

Ratio - State - Outlay to Tax Ranking
*****************************
1. New Mexico - $2.03

2. Mississippi - $2.02

3, Alaska - $1.84

4. Louisiana - $1.78

5. West Virginia - $1.76

6. North Dakota - $1.68

7. Alabama - $1.66

8. South Dakota - $1.53

9. Kentucky - $1.51

10. Virginia - $1.51

11. Montana - $1.47

12. Hawaii - $1.44

13. Maine - $1.41

13. Arkansas - $1.41

15. Oklahoma - $1.36

16. South Carolina - $1.35

17. Missouri - $1.32

18. Maryland - $1.30

19. Tennessee - $1.27

20. Idaho - $1.21

21. Arizona - $1.19

22. Kansas - $1.12

23. Wyoming - $1.11

24. Iowa - $1.10

24. Nebraska - $1.10

26. Vermont - $1.08

26. North Carolina - $1.08

28. Pennsylvania - $1.07

29. Utah - $1.07

30. Indiana - $1.05

30. Ohio - $1.05

32. Georgia - $1.01

These 32 states receive more federal funds than they contribute.
************************************************

33. Rhode Island - $1.00

34. Florida - $0.97

35. Texas - $0.94

36. Oregon - $0.93

37. Michigan - $0.92

38. Washington - $0.88

39. Wisconsin - $0.86

40. Massachusetts - $0.82

41. Colorado - $0.81

42. New York - $0.79

43. California - $0.78

44. Delaware - $0.77

45. llinois - $0.75

46. Minnesota - $0.72

47. New Hampshire - $0.71

48. Connecticut - $0.69

49. Nevada - $0.65

50. New Jersey - $0.61

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

 

[Toro]

You know whats funny? If you had read further, specifically after the first two paragraphs, you would have found that issue addressed.

Can you back your claim?

The Tax Foundation - Accounting for What Families Pay in Taxes and What They Receive in Government Spending
The Tax Foundation - Slide Show: Redistribution and the Impact of Obama's Policies

These studies do not back up your contention that half the people "pay absolutely no taxes."

These studies compare the net benefit of government spending, i.e. total federal government spending less taxes paid.

Of course half the people will be net beneficiaries of government spending. One would expect that in any progressive tax system, at least half the people would benefit. Heck, one might expect that in a flat tax system. It's simple math.

 

[Intense]

Its up to the states. Voting is a privilage, not a right.

I would disagree with you there. Let's distinguish between Voice through Vote, and Theft through Vote. Let's distinguish between living within the rule of law, and living outside of it. We have protected Rights, Voting is one of them, It can be forfeited through Conscious Action, that results in conviction, or even in relation to mental health issues. A Competent Adult has a Right to Voice and Vote. You don't want to change that and create a Caste System.

What the Legislature has a right to impose on us with other peoples money is another issue. We need boundaries to the abuses to property rights, ignoring those boundaries has brought us to where we are today. All Laws should be impartial to person and position, no exceptions, no exemptions. If it is too draconian, check your premise, something is wrong with the legislation at the root level if it does harm. When Tyranny results, what does it matter that it is born of a majority of Idiots or a minority of idiots? In the end it is still Tyranny, still doing harm, and still at was with Justice.

You want educated and responsible Voters, Members of Society, Educate and teach responsibility. We are all in it together, drinking the same water, breathing the same air. We each have a relationship to Society, We both give and take. In all that, Each remains his or her own property, at least in a just Society.

If your view is like mine and beleive that the function of government is to defend everyones liberty, then my thesis makes perfect since.

We agree on the function of Government. Not on restricting Voter participation as a means to curb injustice. Unjust laws are either a result of poorly planned and written legislation, or the misinterpretation of that legislation. The Government's charge is to protect and defend, that implies it's own conformity with it's purpose for being. The Mob is not entitled to unjust gain just because it feels entitled to it. Theft is theft, by any name. Qualify and seek consent. Knowing the true cost should be revealed in the process, no?

 

[rikules]

"pay no taxes"

LOTS of people don't pay any taxes...

SOME millionaires don't pay any taxes

and even some regular guys, after tax breaks for families, end up paying no taxes....

and
since some people pay MUCH MORE in taxes than other people....

maybe they should get MORE votes?


take 2 guys with equal employment
equal pay - $70,000

1 is a straight conservative with a wife (who doesn't work) and 5 kids
the other is a gay guy

the straight conservative guy gets tax breaks for his wife and kids and ends up paying $0 in taxes (while complaining VERY ANGRILY about HIS taxes being used for things he doesn't believe in)

the gay guy gets NO TAX BREAKS so he pays $20000 and is denied the right to marry by the straight guy who pays no taxes.....

perhaps the gay guy should get MORE votes
and the straight guy should none.....

I'm interested to see what Pubes II has to say about your example.

What did you think of my response?

sorry for delay in response...

went to bed

just got up about an hour ago and have finally had that necessary 2nd cup of espresso

I liked and agreed with your response

 

[Intense]

I'm interested to see what Pubes II has to say about your example.

What did you think of my response?

sorry for delay in response...

went to bed

just got up about an hour ago and have finally had that necessary 2nd cup of espresso

I liked and agreed with your response

First we all pay taxes that are hidden in the cost of service, production, distribution, and sale. Second, No Taxation without representation. Third, go get a Civil Union for now , or get Married in a State that recognizes Gay Marriage. That's Federalism at work. Things change, that is part of human nature, sorry if the change isn't fast enough for you. Maybe you can get a hobby or redecorate while you are waiting for the change, while the rest of us are finding it hard enough to count our's.

 

[whitehall]

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Welfare recipients ARE allowed to vote. Who would deny them that precious right? Stalinists? Taxation without representation is tyranny not the other way around.

 

[Intense]

Tyranny is Tyranny, in any form.