Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on July 30, 2008, 02:13:44 PM
-
Which party do you think they'll vote for?
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/26071994.html
-
Republican of course! They have everyone's best interests at heart! :P
-
Which party do you think they'll vote for?
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/26071994.html
You know, there are times when I think that only allowing Land Owners to vote was the right choice. I think that someone who has made money, and purchased their own house / land, would believe (by nature alone) in the best thing for the US.
Then I start to consider that it isn't the land owning aspect I admire, but those that have earned their money. And I am tempted to set a base minimum salary / earned amount of money per year required to allow people to vote.
-
You know, there are times when I think that only allowing Land Owners to vote was the right choice. I think that someone who has made money, and purchased their own house / land, would believe (by nature alone) in the best thing for the US.
Then I start to consider that it isn't the land owning aspect I admire, but those that have earned their money. And I am tempted to set a base minimum salary / earned amount of money per year required to allow people to vote.
That would be way too pragmatic, Laser... It would also alienate all those people who love their children too much to earn a decent living.
-
You know, there are times when I think that only allowing Land Owners to vote was the right choice. I think that someone who has made money, and purchased their own house / land, would believe (by nature alone) in the best thing for the US.
Then I start to consider that it isn't the land owning aspect I admire, but those that have earned their money. And I am tempted to set a base minimum salary / earned amount of money per year required to allow people to vote.
arrogant
1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner
-
arrogant
1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner
Under my plan, I currently would not be able to vote.
Anyway, I believe it foolish that those who benefit from the system, yet put nothing into the system get to decide on its rules.
-
I wonder how many of them are gonna vote more than once and/or are still living?
-
I've seen democrats passing out cigarrettes and copies of a pamphlet titled "Black Voter's Guide" at voting polls in Broward County, FL. I guess they will now also be passing out a "Homeless Voter's Guide" to bums who shuffle past.
I don't think we'll be seeing a "White Voter's Guide" tho... it'd probabally be some kind of hate crime - or something...
-
Under my plan, I currently would not be able to vote.
Anyway, I believe it foolish that those who benefit from the system, yet put nothing into the system get to decide on its rules.
What makes you think just because someone doesn't own a home that they put nothing into the system? You do know there is a very large number of homeless war veterans both from past wars and our current ones don't you? Did they put nothing into the system?
Here is a little info if you didn't know..
http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm
-
You know, there are times when I think that only allowing Land Owners to vote was the right choice. I think that someone who has made money, and purchased their own house / land, would believe (by nature alone) in the best thing for the US.
Then I start to consider that it isn't the land owning aspect I admire, but those that have earned their money. And I am tempted to set a base minimum salary / earned amount of money per year required to allow people to vote.
Good idea. I'd go even further. I'd extend that not only to voting, but to posting on internet too.
-
I don't think I'd be opposed to our government coming up with some sort of test given to each prospective voter to test for basic knowledge of our country, its history, and its foundations.
The test would be in English, whether written or spoken. The exception would be Braile or signing. Those who fail the test - ie, cannot express a basic understanding of their country and what their vote means -would not be allowed to vote.
But we'd probably wind up with the same tug of war in designing the test... dems trying to dumb it down, republicans trying to keep it somewhat relevant.
-
Best test would be to see if they can identify the guys running for Prez and VP by name and photo. Its amazing how many people don't even know the names of the people that serve as VP, Sec of Defense, Sec of State, etc.
-
Best test would be to see if they can identify the guys running for Prez and VP by name and photo. Its amazing how many people don't even know the names of the people that serve as VP, Sec of Defense, Sec of State, etc.
Democrats are probably showing a photo-shopped picture of a white Obama to the white homeless guys and buying them a pack of cigs on the day when they vote. :lol
-
Which party do you think they'll vote for?
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/26071994.html
If they're homeless, how do they vote in the right precinct?
You purge voter rolls by verifying addresses. How do you purge homeless people? How do you make sure they aren't voting homeless in 5 precincts? Two cites? Two states?
Subtitle should be "Voter fraud perfected."
-
If they're homeless, how do they vote in the right precinct?
Subtitle should be "Voter fraud perfected."
What makes you think it matters what precinct they vote in?
Wonder if the dead and the illegal immigrants will set records as well?
-
What makes you think it matters what precinct they vote in?
Wonder if the dead and the illegal immigrants will set records as well?
It matters if they have no home, if they are voting in multiple precincts. How can you check?
Do you like the idea of you getting one vote and someone without a physical address getting 4 votes?
-
You know, there are times when I think that only allowing Land Owners to vote was the right choice. I think that someone who has made money, and purchased their own house / land, would believe (by nature alone) in the best thing for the US.
Problem is I dont think they would vote for the best thing for the USA.
Just for the best thing for themselves.
Power always seems to push for more power for itself.
Typically and the expence of others.
Look at any security force,Police, Or homelend security.
-
That is unless you think that the best thing for themselves may also be the best thing for the US.
-
Problem is I dont think they would vote for the best thing for the USA.
Just for the best thing for themselves
Kinda like virtually everyone else?
-
That is unless you think that the best thing for themselves may also be the best thing for the US.
This sounds a lot like that Socialism you hate so much.
Do what's best for the whole not the individual.
You don't understand why you should vote this way.
Sounds pretty Socialist to me lol.
-
People registering to vote do not have to give a full Social Security number. How are we making sure homeless people aren't registered in multiple precincts and voting 5 times?
-
It matters if they have no home, if they are voting in multiple precincts. How can you check?
Do you like the idea of you getting one vote and someone without a physical address getting 4 votes?
If it actually worked like that, it wouldn't matter if you were homeless or not as to how many time you could vote. You can't vote with out a voters id card. If it was so simple to get one that a homeless guy could get four, well we would have a lot more to worry about that homeless people.
-
People registering to vote do not have to give a full Social Security number. How are we making sure homeless people aren't registered in multiple precincts and voting 5 times?
Why stop at homeless people what makes them so special that you think only they could cheat the system if you honestly believe it can be cheated?
-
they're just execting to vote. what's the harm in that?
-
BOOO osama obama!
WOOOT WOOOOT WOOOT! MCCAIN the pimp
-BigBOBCH
-
Problem is I dont think they would vote for the best thing for the USA.
Just for the best thing for themselves.
Power always seems to push for more power for itself.
Typically and the expence of others.
Look at any security force,Police, Or homelend security.
Arent they the result of something ?
Sorry, i'm not american, but what you wrote here i really dont understand at all.
Calling homeless people "Power always seems to push for more" eh ???
this people have nothing, but they are americans, or not ???
ignore them ? they are crap ? is that the way ?
good luck and back to qiote you:
"Power always seems to push for more power for itself.
Typically and the expence of others."
-
Where does owning a property show up as a constitutional requirement to exercise a constitutional right? As far as the homeless registering in multiple locations is concerned, a property owner could do the exact same thing. There is nothing preventing a property owner from registering in several districts using bogus info any more than a homeless person.
As far as maintaining a positive ID is concerned, exactly how do you propose that be done? A universal ID card perhaps?
-
Arent they the result of something ?
Sorry, i'm not american, but what you wrote here i really dont understand at all.
Calling homeless people "Power always seems to push for more" eh ???
this people have nothing, but they are americans, or not ???
ignore them ? they are crap ? is that the way ?
good luck and back to qiote you:
"Power always seems to push for more power for itself.
Typically and the expence of others."
To answer your question; My wife deals with these homeless EVERY DAY. They are patients that have "institutionalized" problems or drug abuser or alcohol abusers. If your country thinks that its fine that these sort of folks determine the fate of your country in a close election, then fine. In MY country, they HAVE the right to vote, but should not be tempted to vote by "motor voter" *(where a pack of cigs are offered to vote) nor should they be recruited to vote in a state of mind where they have no idea who they're voting for. THAT is exactly the type of voters the democrats WILL seek out, just to win an election.
-
Arent they the result of something ?
Sorry, i'm not american, but what you wrote here i really dont understand at all.
Calling homeless people "Power always seems to push for more" eh ???
this people have nothing, but they are americans, or not ???
ignore them ? they are crap ? is that the way ?
good luck and back to qiote you:
"Power always seems to push for more power for itself.
Typically and the expence of others."
You seem to have misinterpeted what I said
What I was referring to is if only landowners were allowed to vote.
The landowners would be the only ones with power over what goes on. What laws are passed, etc etc.
Nobody else would have a say. Because they wouldnt be allowed to have a voice (the vote).
The ones with power always tend to try to press for more power for themselves.
At the expence of others.
-
Keep in mind Dred there are other considerations.
For those who seem to think property ownership is so special, some of the folks that need to be bailed out financially are those that are / were land owners. You want to insure that they have a vote too but the folks who manage their affairs yet rent should not. Again, where is the constitutional requirement that you own property in order to vote? What other rights should a citizen be denied if they don't own property? How about the right to speak their minds, peaceably assemble, worship as they choose, own a firearm? Should they also be subject to unwarranted search since they rent? Of course they should also be forced to answer questions and be denied a lawyer at interrogations. I mean why the hell should any of the constitution be applied to non property owners?
It sure makes sense to disenfranchise a segment of the population doesn't it. Make property so expensive that only the rich can afford it and soon only the rich are voting. Why bother with lobbyists? :rolleyes:
-
Keep in mind Dred there are other considerations.
For those who seem to think property ownership is so special, some of the folks that need to be bailed out financially are those that are / were land owners. You want to insure that they have a vote too but the folks who manage their affairs yet rent should not. Again, where is the constitutional requirement that you own property in order to vote? What other rights should a citizen be denied if they don't own property? How about the right to speak their minds, peaceably assemble, worship as they choose, own a firearm? Should they also be subject to unwarranted search since they rent? Of course they should also be forced to answer questions and be denied a lawyer at interrogations. I mean why the hell should any of the constitution be applied to non property owners?
Thats exactly the point Im trying to make.
Im not saying that only property owners should be allowed to vote.
But why that would be a bad idea
-
I would not worry to much about the homeless deciding an election I would be more concerned with things like this. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Voting_machine
-
America is a great country, In America even dead people have the right to vote.
vote early and vote often.
-
I would not worry to much about the homeless deciding an election I would be more concerned with things like this. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Voting_machine
No wonder the Obamessiah is acting like he already won! :D
-
Thats exactly the point Im trying to make.
Im not saying that only property owners should be allowed to vote.
But why that would be a bad idea
I figured we were on the same sheet of music but wanted to add another adagio to the score. ;)
FWIW there are already some folks, perhaps more than a few hundred, that have been denied the right to vote because they didn't have a fixed permanent address. They are some full time RV'ers based in TN IIRC. There is a suit in progress now to reinstate their right to vote.