The POOR shouldn't be able to vote.

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Why is it that you liberals curse the rich?
Those are the very same people that created just about everything you own, your car, computer, cell phone, refrigerator, TV, clothes...everything you own and eat!
If you use any of these and still call them out...YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE!
If you really hate the rich go live off the earth 100%...you wouldn't survive...PERIOD!
You should THANK them for all the comforts you enjoy...and SHUT THE FUCK UP!

No one's cursing the rich here. We're cursing those who indiscriminately curse the poor. Cursing those who disingenuously portray the poor as clever manipulators of the system--they who so ingeniously have become impoverished so as to "steal" from the system by not paying their share of taxes.

We'll save "it's rich people who invented everything" for a later day. :rolleyes:

Good lord what a douche.

That's a typical response i expected form a liberal...they always resort to name calling...and liberals claim their the compassionate ones! What a joke!

You said "Shut the fuck up". I called out a douche. I never said I was compassionate. Especially when it comes to douchery.

The difference is I didn't direct it at you!

You called all "liberals" rich-haters and hypocrites and told all "liberals" to shut the fuck up.

I called out your douche-iness.

So, what happened is you came barging into the room, ranting and yelling "Shut the fuck up!", and then when confronted, you played the victim.

Weak.
 

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Ok, we are way off topic here. Lets come back to this article.

First of all, not actively registering the poor is denotatively different than inhibiting the poor from voting. Now, I haven’t read the original column, but from what I gather, he is saying we should not be using federal money in order to subsidize a voting bloc for political gain. That is basically what ACORN tried to do.

I think there may be merit in that argument. Although no citizen of this country who has not legally or criminally forfeited his rights should be prohibited from voting, federally funded programs should not target any particular voting bloc with the intent to sway an election by promoting a particular party.

Seems fair. Realistically, the editorial article was probably cherry picking its quotes, and many columnists, like radio and TV hosts, use inflammatory language to grab peoples attention. Beneath all the talk is very possibly, a sound argument.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Ok, we are way off topic here. Lets come back to this article.

First of all, not actively registering the poor is denotatively different than inhibiting the poor from voting. Now, I haven’t read the original column, but from what I gather, he is saying we should not be using federal money in order to subsidize a voting bloc for political gain. That is basically what ACORN tried to do.

I think there may be merit in that argument. Although no citizen of this country who has not legally or criminally forfeited his rights should be prohibited from voting, federally funded programs should not target any particular voting bloc with the intent to sway an election by promoting a particular party.

Seems fair. Realistically, the editorial article was probably cherry picking its quotes, and many columnists, like radio and TV hosts, use inflammatory language to grab peoples attention. Beneath all the talk is very possibly, a sound argument.

Perhaps you should read the article.
 

B_enzia35

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Posts
863
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
53
Location
Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
 

travis1985

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Posts
835
Media
1
Likes
105
Points
288
Location
Coeur d'Alene (Idaho, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
The American way calls for open and free elections with full enfranchisement to all eligible voters: one person = one vote. And though I disagree with the concept of excluding certain voters from an election, I strongly disagree with the concept of civil rights going up for a group vote. I cannot imagine another instance where that would be tolerated.
So you disagree with excluding voters, unless it's something that you think should pass and including everyone might put that in danger?
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
326
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
So you disagree with excluding voters, unless it's something that you think should pass and including everyone might put that in danger?

No: learn to read. I disagree with putting anyone's civil rights to a majority-rule vote. It's uncivilized.

ETA: Danger? Everyone's in danger over marriage equality? WTF does that mean?
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
You mean that the republic in effect ended when the rich gained sufficient control to do exactly this?It is now a hereditary aristocracy? It would seem this is an attempt to maintain this situation?

I saw the title and don't even know where to begin with a reply, lol.
Don't think I'll read it. :p
That is generally the problem, people dont read the fine print, even supporters.

Why is it that you liberals curse the rich?
Those are the very same people that created just about everything you own, your car, computer, cell phone, refrigerator, TV, clothes...everything you own and eat!
The alternative view is that said people did not create anything whatsoever because they never actually picked up any tools to do the work. Surely the reason people like sitting in offices and thinking up work for other people is because it is a lot easier than doing that work. Yet somehow the system rewards the ones who sit about all day rather then the ones who make things.

The Government is running a deficit because it spends too much then it takes in. Big government means higher taxes!
If the government gets bigger it doesn't help the economy that just means they're using more tax dollars to pay them!The more private sector jobs that are created by the wealthy the less burden on all of us. pretty common sense! My 10 year old nephew even understands this!
You just said why you are wrong. You just said, the more people in a job, the wider the tax burden is spread and the less each individual pays. That means that if the government creates jobs, those peiople pay taxes and burden on you is less because it is spread wider. When the government spends money the magic of taxation means that most of it ends back in the hands of government. This is the bit you are missing out. The proportion which ends up back in government hands is the difficult question, but it is possible for it to be more than 100%.

Now if you personally want to have more money, then I suggest cancel your health insurance and stop going out. Dont want to do that? Maybe you like those things? Well maybe you like the things you get from the government in return for your money too. Maybe you dont mind paying twice as much as you need to have a private health system instead of a public one. Do you really need that extra holiday, or would you rather pay for soldiers to go abroad?
 
Last edited:

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
53
I think there may be merit in that argument. Although no citizen of this country who has not legally or criminally forfeited his rights should be prohibited from voting, federally funded programs should not target any particular voting bloc with the intent to sway an election by promoting a particular party.

Well... they don't. There isn't a "federally funded program that targets specific voting blocs with the intent of swaying elections by promoting a particular party." What would we call that? The Department of The Other Guy's Party Sucks? You're talking about organizations like Rock the Vote, and I can assure you we (they) don't get money from the government to pay for their rallies or get out the vote drives or tee shirts or stickers or concerts. That money, all of it, comes from private donations.

But, while we're on the subject, if we as a society are going to stop trying to get certain disenfranchised segments of the population to vote (the urban poor, the young, the extreme minorities etc.) why start at the poverty line? If we're going to throw our hands up and say "We don't give a fuck about these people's votes" why start with the poor? Why not start with the willfully ignorant? You can name all the time slots for Real Housewives of Orange County on Bravo but you can't name even half of the Supreme Court Justices? We no longer give a shit whether you vote or not. Or how about this- a standard IQ test to determine whether or not you are of any value to any organization out there that might be trying to improve the abysmal voter turn out in this country?

You say the article potentially has merit and while I think due to your exposition on the article itself you understand that such an inflammatory comment would provoke a certain response, I don't think you've thought it through to the end of the third act. Nobody votes in this country anyway. It's a ridiculously low number (especially comparatively speaking.) Deciding we won't target people based on their being poor seems like a bad place to start. It's not like the poor don't already know no one gives a shit about them. We don't need to make it official.

The stupid, on the other hand, are rewarded by our society hand over fist. Reality television and Fox news is all anyone would need to cite to prove that's the truth. If we're going to start declaring what we should not care about, why not start there?




JSZ
 

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well... they don't. There isn't a "federally funded program that targets specific voting blocs with the intent of swaying elections by promoting a particular party." What would we call that? The Department of The Other Guy's Party Sucks? You're talking about organizations like Rock the Vote, and I can assure you we (they) don't get money from the government to pay for their rallies or get out the vote drives or tee shirts or stickers or concerts. That money, all of it, comes from private donations.
You have provided an example that has little relevance to my point, by your own admission. If a group is not federally funded/assisted, then they can do what they please within legal limits. Also, I think Rock the Vote, targets young voters regardless of which part they intend to vote for, and the program does not advocate for any particular party. ACORN, on the other hand, both received federal funding AND advocated for the Democratic party.
But, while we're on the subject, if we as a society are going to stop trying to get certain disenfranchised segments of the population to vote (the urban poor, the young, the extreme minorities etc.) why start at the poverty line? If we're going to throw our hands up and say "We don't give a fuck about these people's votes" why start with the poor? Why not start with the willfully ignorant? You can name all the time slots for Real Housewives of Orange County on Bravo but you can't name even half of the Supreme Court Justices? We no longer give a shit whether you vote or not. Or how about this- a standard IQ test to determine whether or not you are of any value to any organization out there that might be trying to improve the abysmal voter turn out in this country?
Again, not actively encouraging a person to vote is not the same thing as inhibiting or prohibiting that person from voting.
You say the article potentially has merit and while I think due to your exposition on the article itself you understand that such an inflammatory comment would provoke a certain response, I don't think you've thought it through to the end of the third act.
Actually, I have thought it through, have you? Consider that federal funds as tax revenue are contributed by the population as a whole. If federal funds are used to fund a group that specifically advocates and promotes one particular political party over another, then people who would vote for the opposing party are paying into the bankrolls of their opponent. I'm sure that if federal tax money were going to fund a Republican leaning voter drive, the left would cry foul unending. Fair is fair.

Quite honestly, as often as fairness is touted as a goal by Leftists, Progressives, and Democrats, their willingness to participate in and complacency in allowing programs which seem to promote fairness but are really a political tool at taxpayer expense makes them as hypocritical as they claim their opponents to be.
 

umami_tsunami

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 25, 2011
Posts
388
Media
52
Likes
126
Points
163
Location
Philadelphia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Well... they don't. There isn't a "federally funded program that targets specific voting blocs with the intent of swaying elections by promoting a particular party." What would we call that? The Department of The Other Guy's Party Sucks? You're talking about organizations like Rock the Vote, and I can assure you we (they) don't get money from the government to pay for their rallies or get out the vote drives or tee shirts or stickers or concerts. That money, all of it, comes from private donations.

JSZ

Au contraire, mon frere. There is a very active campaign to pass new laws that will very specifically target young, lower income and minority voters in dozens of states right now and make it far more difficult for them to register to vote.

Does new Florida election law make it harder for some to register to vote?

Oh hell, just watch Rachel explain it. I'd like to force every republican and anyone with a two digit IQ (we're talking lot's of overlap here) to watch Rachel Maddow "Clockwork Orange" style.
 

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Au contraire, mon frere. There is a very active campaign to pass new laws that will very specifically target young, lower income and minority voters in dozens of states right now and make it far more difficult for them to register to vote.

Please think carefully about what you are saying. A campaign to pass laws is not a group that is encouraging or discouraging voters to register or vote. They are attempting to change the laws to inhibit the ability of people to vote, and I agree that such measures are wrong. In any case this is still off-topic.

The heart of this issue is whether federal funds should be used to encourage voting and register voters of particular voting blocs, not unilaterally, but with an agenda that promotes one party.
 

umami_tsunami

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 25, 2011
Posts
388
Media
52
Likes
126
Points
163
Location
Philadelphia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Please think carefully about what you are saying. A campaign to pass laws is not a group that is encouraging or discouraging voters to register or vote. They are attempting to change the laws to inhibit the ability of people to vote, and I agree that such measures are wrong. In any case this is still off-topic.

The heart of this issue is whether federal funds should be used to encourage voting and register voters of particular voting blocs, not unilaterally, but with an agenda that promotes one party.

Please re-read what you just posted (carefully). Are you really this dim?
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
53
The heart of this issue is whether federal funds should be used to encourage voting and register voters of particular voting blocs, not unilaterally, but with an agenda that promotes one party.

And that, I agree, is wrong. I'm fine with it all the way up to the very last part- promoting one party. I'm leaving all that Acorn bullshit alone because, frankly, I'm sick of hearing about it. The only time I hear that brought up is by some lunatic on talk radio or desperately trying to take a swing at the President. Either way... I was never convinced it was the blight on society it was purported by some to be.

Encouraging people to vote is a good thing. Encouraging specific blocs that are disenfranchised to vote is a good thing. I'm even in favor of using government money to do so. I draw the line at supporting one party or the other. And without Glen Beck-esque conspiracy theories to tie this person to that person and that person to that organization and that organization to that overseas bank and that overseas bank to funding coming from the Secretary of the Treasury's second cousin, I don't think there abundant examples of this happening anyway.







JSZ