While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!

I'm far more interested in drug testing EVERYONE who receives public assistance.

That may be due to your total lack of respect for our constitution and your falsely held belief that poor people are all smoking crack on your dime.

Bullshit. If our Tax payers are subsidizing people to sit on their asses, then it is not too much to ask that they not abuse substances on our dime. No different than the Constitutionality of requiring a new hire to pee in a cup when they get hired for a job.

I agree however I do agree with disallowing felons to vote.

Ever or just while in prison or on parole?

People on public assistance are not criminals.

You wouldn't know that if all you did was hang out here...

In NJ, felons can have their rights restored after successful completion of jail time, parole, and probation. I'm ok with that.

As for your second comment, :confused:

Ah cool.

So you are okay with districts that have large prison populations not adding them into their numbers come census time? Since the prisoners don't really count as citizens..right?

And it's kind of a double dip. Since those districts count them for political reasons. Prisoners are already subsidized by the state.
 
While I am one who thoroughly detests the fact that we have millions and millions of people voting to take away from producers so they can get as many freebies as they can get.. I cannot go with a plan that takes away the right to vote from a citizen who is eligible to vote... No prisoners voting, yeah that is right to do... No people who are mentally incompetent voting, yeah that is right to do.... Ensuring that people are who they say they are and that they are eligible to vote, yeah that is right to do... but this would be wrong
 
"For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You should be removed from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check."

I came across this at another site. I neither agree or disagree at this point but what do YOU think?

I agree. Anyone that receives a stipend from the government is in a conflict of interest, and in order to vote, you should be free of that conflict before being allowed to vote. That does not include just welfare recepients.
 
"For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You should be removed from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check."

I came across this at another site. I neither agree or disagree at this point but what do YOU think?

I agree. Anyone that receives a stipend from the government is in a conflict of interest, and in order to vote, you should be free of that conflict before being allowed to vote. That does not include just welfare recepients.

I get a monthly stipend from the government. Wanna take away my right to vote?
 
If and when you put your house up for sale, or any other real estate property, people in general will usually call on multiple realtors to give them market appraisals of the property's worth. Most of the time the realtor coming in with the highest market appraisal usually wins the right to market the property from the unsophisticated property owner. This highest listing place always winning the bid phenomenon usually occurs whether the appraisal is realistic or not. The winning realtor always assumes they can get you to lower your price to a more realistic, more marketable price after its been on the market for a suitable length of time with little to no activity.

When this nation was founded, the right to vote was restricted to only those who owned property on the assumption that those who had the most to lose would have the most say in determining the fate of their property.
Universal suffrage opened the door for multiple demagogues who had less interest in the fate of the property holders, and consequently the fate of the nation, and more interest in their personal aggrandizement by promising disenfranchised voters who had nothing to lose and everything to gain, the sun, the moon, and the stars. Thus, through that opening, Barack Obama came to be, with his promises of "Vote for me and I will steal from he to give to thee!"
Mr Obama once remarked on the occasion of his first speech that he stopped momentarily a minute or two into it to catch his breath and realized that he had his audience eating out of his hand.
 
Last edited:
But while welfare, wealth redistribution, etc is WRONG... that needs to be fought thru a change in government and strict adherence to the constitution... not thru taking away the right to vote from eligible citizens...

Where the country and government is wrong is the thinking that a popular whim gives them the right... and that because something can be done, it does not mean it SHOULD be done... especially with government when it is not empowered to do so
 
Last edited:
"For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You should be removed from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check."

I came across this at another site. I neither agree or disagree at this point but what do YOU think?

It's idiocy. Anyone associated with any company that relies on government spending for any or all of its business would have a conflict of interest by the above measure.
 
I've been a member of this board for a little over a week. So far ive seen users post, and other users agree with...

Poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote
If you don't have a job you shoudnt be allowed to vote
Women shouldn't be allowed to vote
Young people shouldn't be allowed to vote

Why don't we toss out the vote all together? It's clearly getting in everyone's way.
 
That may be due to your total lack of respect for our constitution and your falsely held belief that poor people are all smoking crack on your dime.

Bullshit. If our Tax payers are subsidizing people to sit on their asses, then it is not too much to ask that they not abuse substances on our dime. No different than the Constitutionality of requiring a new hire to pee in a cup when they get hired for a job.

What about companies receiving government money?

Since tax payer money is subsidizing them should their employees and stockholders be subject to drug testing?

Definitely the board of directors since they're the ones responsible.
 
I've been a member of this board for a little over a week. So far ive seen users post, and other users agree with...

Poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote
If you don't have a job you shoudnt be allowed to vote
Women shouldn't be allowed to vote
Young people shouldn't be allowed to vote

Why don't we toss out the vote all together? It's clearly getting in everyone's way.

Now I don't agree with any of the others.. but the voting age part is intriguing.. upping the voting age to 21 (just like the drinking age) is indeed something I think should be looked at.. if a 20 year old cannot be trusted in judgement to drink, how can the be trusted to vote??
 
I've been a member of this board for a little over a week. So far ive seen users post, and other users agree with...

Poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote
If you don't have a job you shoudnt be allowed to vote
Women shouldn't be allowed to vote
Young people shouldn't be allowed to vote

Why don't we toss out the vote all together? It's clearly getting in everyone's way.

Keep in mind, to be honest, the conservatives on this board, when they post that sort of stupidity, fall into two categories,

a. the ones who really are sufficiently stupid to believe what they're saying, and,

b. the ones who know that it's idiocy but are just trying to see how annoying they can be.

There are NO serious, intelligent, thoughtful conservatives on this board. Period. That is just the nature of the beast, as they say. You either accept that and play along, or let them get to you.
 
I've been a member of this board for a little over a week. So far ive seen users post, and other users agree with...

Poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote
If you don't have a job you shoudnt be allowed to vote
Women shouldn't be allowed to vote
Young people shouldn't be allowed to vote

Why don't we toss out the vote all together? It's clearly getting in everyone's way.

It is a damn inconvenience! Everything would probably go a lot faster if we dispensed with it. After all, it isn't as if it changes anything. The powerful just get more so. But it drags the pace down terribly.

Or, just for once and just for fun, we could toss the 'votees' out!
Make a change!
 
"For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You should be removed from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check."

Personally I'd rather see the federal government stop sending welfare checks, be they to individuals, organizations or major corporations. The general welfare clause does NOT refer to government handouts. The so called Great Society is dead. Let it rest in peace.

Then go vote.
 
One good thing about the OP proposition is that it would eliminate Congress from voting. Altogether, I hope!
 
I have never seen anyone seriously suggesting that welfare recipients (or social security recipients?) be denied their Constitutional right to vote. The issue might be promoted by anarchists looking for a fight or crazy ignorant people.
 
Some people think that if one cannot vote right, there's only what's left.

There must be more!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top