LIberals Argue: Neither Blacks Nor Women Should Have Guns

[coyotejoe]

 Maybe we should limit voting to persons over six feet tall, or only those with red hair and green eyes, or only those who can run a mile in less than five minutes.  I am of course being facetious but any of those qualifiers make as much sense as limiting the right to vote by any other qualifier except citizenship. Any legal adult citizen should be entitled to one vote.

[SHOOTALL]

if you own land or pay taxes you will vote to insure the country is operated in a sensable way . If you have no investment and can in effect vote yourself unjust rewards the health of the country is not your goal. One only need look at what is going on now . You have people voting to make sure the entitlements won't stop comming with out regard for the country or who pays the bill.

[mcwoodduck]

I think only those with an I.Q. larger than their hat size should be allowed to vote. Nothing personal.
 
Actually, I believe that every citizen should be allowed to vote, including felons, including those in jail. The basic premise is that those who are subject to the law should have a right to participate in deciding what the laws would be.

I would like to see the ellected have to pass a 100 random question test  out of a 10,000 question sample on world history, US history, citienship, economics, science, and simple math.  and the ellected need to score an 80% before they are allowed to vote or submit legislation and they are not paid until they reach an 80%.   And three fails and they are removed from office.

[mcwoodduck]

Maybe we should limit voting to persons over six feet tall, or only those with red hair and green eyes, or only those who can run a mile in less than five minutes.  I am of course being facetious but any of those qualifiers make as much sense as limiting the right to vote by any other qualifier except citizenship. Any legal adult citizen should be entitled to one vote.

The founding fathers wanted to have responisible people voting.
Any mob can get together and vote that something should happen.  That does not make it right.  We have a Republic rather than a true democracy to stop mob rule.
the problem the founding fathers did not see is that some would use their position in the government for personal gain rather than the good of the community.  These same people have promised and promised to get votes and increase their power and personal wealth. 

[Oldshooter]

Voting when you are on welfare represents a conflict of interest.


Ben Franklin said that when the people realize they can vote themselves money it would mean the end of the republic............we are almost there.

[coyotejoe]

"When the people realize they can vote themselves money"
 Ben Franklin was a clever fellow but that statement is not so profound as it may first appear. Doesn't everyone vote their own self interest? If you vote for the candidate who promises lower taxes aren't you voting yourself money? When a farmer votes for the candidate who promises farm subsidies or the teacher votes for aid to education or the union worker votes for a strong union candidate aren't they voting themselves money? The whole principal of a democratic system is that everyone votes in their own self interest and the winning candidate or issue is the one which is in the self interest of the majority of people. I don't believe I have ever said "well I'll be cutting my own throat with this vote but it's for the common good". I'd like to think I might say that but I don't recall that I ever have.  

[mcwoodduck]

"When the people realize they can vote themselves money"
 Ben Franklin was a clever fellow but that statement is not so profound as it may first appear. Doesn't everyone vote their own self interest? If you vote for the candidate who promises lower taxes aren't you voting yourself money? No I am voting not to give the government more of my money.  Your statement makes it sound like all of the money anyone recieves is from the government and not their own efforts, creativity, and smarts.  When a farmer votes for the candidate who promises farm subsidies This is voting moeny for your self out of the pockets from someone else.  As any money comming from the government has to be taken from someone else first or the teacher votes for aid to education or the union worker votes for a strong union candidate But the union is not part of the government.  The union can vote for whom ever they want ot run the union. and so far as I can see no matter who the Union backs and supports the Democrats have the unions on a lower priority than the green people and take care of them and hurt the unions. aren't they voting themselves money? The whole principal of a democratic system is that everyone votes in their own self interest Voting your own interest is different than voting to steal from someone else.  and the winning candidate or issue is the one which is in the self interest of the majority of people. I don't believe I have ever said "well I'll be cutting my own throat with this vote but it's for the common good". I'd like to think I might say that but I don't recall that I ever have.

[Oldshooter]

Coyotejoe, the point flew so far over your head you didn't feel the wind.  Did you miss the point about welfare.  When you are on welfare you are on the dole. And if you vote for the folk that give you more welfare then you have a conflict of interest.  This welfare system is the NEW slavery once on it , you cant escape and its like crack you just want more.


Vote how you want, all I do is hope for the future of this country that in the future there are more like me than you.

[coyotejoe]

No, I don't believe I am the one who is missing the point here and I don't believe you are missing it because it's "over your head" but because you have chosen not to look at it and that is the very definition of bigotry. You know but don't want to accept the fact that whether one votes to receive money from the treasury or votes to avoid paying money into the treasury the result is the same for your bank account and for the treasury, either way you are voting for your own financial benefit. I agree that our welfare system is out of control. When a woman has a dozen kids by a dozen absent fathers so she can collect enough welfare to live like a rock star that sickens me as much as I'm sure it does you. But is the fault with the woman who votes herself money or with the representitives who enact legislation to win her vote.  Both are only acting in self  interest just as you and I do every time we vote.  You have no right to deny any citizen the right to vote just because their self interest conflicts with your self interest.

[Oldshooter]

You still missed the point.


 Vote to bring someone into power that will make business better or to make the environment better for your  business is not being on the dole.




Voting for the guy with socialist or communist agendas that will make the working taxpayer pay your way is a conflict of interest because you are on the dole.


If that makes me a bigot so be it.  What does it say for you if it has to be spelled out and a picture drawn.


When the people discover that they can vote themselves money it will mean the end of the republic!
Not so difficult to understand really. Maybe not profound but true.

[coyotejoe]

You still missed the point.


 Vote to bring someone into power that will make business better or to make the environment better for your  business is not being on the dole.
No, not on the dole but voting to serve your interest the same as the person on the dole votes to serve their interest, is that so hard for you to grasp? I think not, I think it is only hard for you to admit.

Voting for the guy with socialist or communist agendas that will make the working taxpayer pay your way is a conflict of interest because you are on the dole.
It is a "conflict of interest" because their interest conflicts with yours.

If that makes me a bigot so be it.  What does it say for you if it has to be spelled out and a picture drawn.
What makes you a bigot is your refusal to admit that one person voting for their own benefit is no different than another person doing the same.


When the people discover that they can vote themselves money it will mean the end of the republic!
Not so difficult to understand really. Maybe not profound but true.

People have always voted themselves money and always will. Whether it be a multi-billionare lobbying for government incentives for oil drilling or a welefare mother voting for increased welfare money both are voting themselves money.   What is different in the USA today is that now "beng on the dole" is socially acceptable, in some cultures even commendable and it is THAT which will spell the end of our society.

[SharonAnne]

ballot box stuffing? You mean like the county where the obamanation got 100% of the vote or how about the county where it got more votes than the registered voters of that county? You mean like that?

[Oldshooter]

Mr. Oldshooter,,,,maybe you and a bunch of guys are missing the point.
.
 
.

.
.
...TM7

That's Mr bigot oldshooter ,  7    I like dogmatist, or partisan better. Seems I may not be the only bigot that trolls these pages, there are even some that when they see the truth on video they question the fact and vilify the source.  Sharonanne be carefull you will incur the rath of the leftist " partisans" lurking here. Had I known being on the dole was "commendable " I wudda applied for  government assistance when I became eligible.  Go figger.

[BAGTIC]

Legally banks and other companies are people.
Most of the people in this country get more in finances, goods, and services from government than they pay in taxes.
High taxes? The British were paying higher taxes at home than we were. If they had been smart they would have given us the vote, it would have been cheaper and undercut the political opposition. BTW, we still don't have any say how are taxes are spent.
How about this, no one who has a government job, or contract, or receives government benefits should be permitted to vote because of a conflict of interest.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. " Benjamin Franklin

[Oldshooter]

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. " Benjamin Franklin

Now you have done it. I said that the other day and somebody called me a bigot. Seems everyone votes themselves money I was told. Even us working people that just vote for the guy we think wont tax us the most and spend less money........ I guess. 

[mcwoodduck]

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. " Benjamin Franklin

Now you have done it. I said that the other day and somebody called me a bigot. Seems everyone votes themselves money I was told. Even us working people that just vote for the guy we think wont tax us the most and spend less money........ I guess. 

when liberals do not have anargument or they know they are tryingto defend someting absurd, they all rush right to the Racist, homophobe, biogots that they think ends the argument as you do not want to bea called that. 

[coyotejoe]

A bigot is one so certain of the correctness of their position that they refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. Other terms for such a person might be "hard headed", "thick skulled" or just plain "stupid". YES everyone votes for their own financial benefit whether they be on welfare or rich as Bill Gates everyone votes themselves money. If you can't see the wrong in stripping the vote from half the population then perhaps you should cut bigger eyeholes in your Klan hood.

[Oldshooter]

SEE! I told you it was coming!    Happens everytime! Kinda like when my door bell rings there is always someone at the door!

[SHOOTALL]

A bigot is one so certain of the correctness of their position that they refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. Other terms for such a person might be "hard headed", "thick skulled" or just plain "stupid". YES everyone votes for their own financial benefit whether they be on welfare or rich as Bill Gates everyone votes themselves money. If you can't see the wrong in stripping the vote from half the population then perhaps you should cut bigger eyeholes in your Klan hood.

That was a good post up to the part about stripping the vote from those who contribute nothing but expence. In any other endevor man engauges if you don't contribute you don't have a say why should deciding the wealfare of a nation be different ? It is akin to having the fox guard the hen house , of course he will take chickens won't cost him a thing.
Maybe those who can't see the lunacy of it should remove their liberal rose colored glasses

[coyotejoe]

Well if the principle of "one man, one vote" is a radically liberal concept then call me a liberal, although that would come as a shock to anyone who knows me or who has ever read anything I've posted here.  To deny the vote to half the population because you think that they may not vote the way you think they should is not any sort of democracy I've ever heard of. If you can exclude one segment of the population then you can exclude any segment. Suppose some future congress should decide to exclude NRA members from voting? Why not? Would that not be a very effective way for one political party to cement its control? I have stated earlier that I fully agree that the welfare "nanny state" is totally out of control, but that doesn't change the fact that "One man, one vote" is the cornerstone of democracy.  You can't exclude anyone based on their financial status or how they may have voted in the past or how you fear they may vote in the future. Is that too "liberal" for you or just too complicate to grasp.

[mcwoodduck]

A bigot is one so certain of the correctness of their position that they refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. Other terms for such a person might be "hard headed", "thick skulled" or just plain "stupid". YES everyone votes for their own financial benefit whether they be on welfare or rich as Bill Gates everyone votes themselves money. If you can't see the wrong in stripping the vote from half the population then perhaps you should cut bigger eyeholes in your Klan hood.

No a bigot is some one that reguardless of the facts believes stero types and hates people for them. 
And I agree that the hard headed, Thick Skulled, just plain stupid all the same meaning.  You also forgot Jack ass and I think the liberals picked that as their mascot for a reason.  The are hard headed, just plain stupid, donkeys.  I always find it strange that the liberals want to change the constitution but then quote it anytime they get in trouble.  The original voting was for citizen tax payers (land owners).  The people paying the taxes ellect the ones spending it. 
Since the liberals want to even the playing field they allowed the people not paying taxes to vote them selves money fro mthe tax payers.  There is a difference between the two, the tax payer understand the government needs money to provide the goods and services we do not want private citizens to do, such as law enforcement and the military.  Since the non tax payers can then vote for people that will transfer the wealth from the payers to the non payers by voting for more and more liberals (donkeys)

[Oldshooter]

A bigot is one so certain of the correctness of their position that they refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. Other terms for such a person might be "hard headed", "thick skulled" or just plain "stupid".

Even when it was explained to you that voting for someone that will make the business environment better for you to make money and voting for someone that will give you a handout is a totally different thing you are so certain of the correctness of your position . you called me a bigot.
 
Did you notice that when you were pointing that finger at me that THREE were pointed back at you.
 
No one is going to take the vote from anyone, but to vote yourself money is a conflict of interest. Kinda like a supreme court justice that is gay "voting" on gay marriage. ya think!

[coyotejoe]

You may be right but the supreme court and the US congress do not agree. Like it or not this is the 21st century poll taxes have been outlawed as have every other form of discrimination. You might want to check out the progess of voter rights, here's one brief source.
http://civilrights.uslegal.com/voting-rights/grandfather-clauses-literacy-tests-and-the-white-primary/

[SHOOTALL]

Well if the principle of "one man, one vote" is a radically liberal concept then call me a liberal, although that would come as a shock to anyone who knows me or who has ever read anything I've posted here.  To deny the vote to half the population because you think that they may not vote the way you think no really I  believe there will still be liberals and connectives and both will have a vested interest in the out come but those who contribute nothing will not be blackmailed into destroying the country.    they should is not any sort of democracy I've ever heard of.I do hope you don't think America is a democracy because it is not it is a federalist form of govt. and in reality one man one vote is a pipe dream when you consider how presidents are elected , electoral college and voting districts see to the rigging of votes. If you can exclude one segment of the population then you can exclude any segment. Suppose some future congress should decide to exclude NRA members from voting? Why not? Would that not be a very effective way for one political party to cement its control?now we get silly , at one time only land owners were allowed to vote . I have stated earlier that I fully agree that the welfare "nanny state" is totally out of control, but that doesn't change the fact that "One man, one vote" is the cornerstone of democracy.yes but we are not a democracy    You can't exclude anyone based on their financial status or how they may have voted in the past or how you fear they may vote in the future.no its protecting the country from those who have no interest in elections but what freebies they can get. Is that too "liberal" for you or just too complicate to grasp. I would ask the same of you , you don't see the abuse ?

[coyotejoe]

Yes, at one time only land owners could vote and the injustice of that was soon recognized, that one time was a very long time ago, try a visit to the 21 century,  most people think it's an improvement. Do you think Bill Gates doesn't have a "vested interest" in the outcome of every election and do you not think he has a lot more influence on that outcome than does a welfare mom?  Why is it a "conflict of interest" only when one interest conflicts with your interest?

[SHOOTALL]

Yes, at one time only land owners could vote and the injustice of that was soon recognized if it makes you warm and fuzzy inside don't let me spoil it for ya but in reality I would bet it was to gain leverage for one party , that one time was a very long time ago yes WHEN THE FOUNDING FATHER SET THE COURSE FOR AMERICA funny but most Constitution came at the same time , try a visit to the 21 century,  most people think it's an improvement please share your source for tat stat. . Do you think Bill Gates doesn't have a "vested interest" in the outcome of every election or would it be more pointed to say the nation had a vested interest in Bill Gates work ? and do you not think he has a lot more influence on that outcome than does a welfare mom? Don't know , but if so why do most political speeches court the welfare mom ? Why is it a "conflict of interest" only when one interest conflicts with your interest? Hum you bring up conflict of interest not I So you must see the validity of those with no contribution not voting to maintain a strong and economically stable  nation  .

[vabeachman]

I believe when people resort to name calling they realize their arguments are weak.  Sorta trying to throw a red herring in the mix to divert from the real subject matter.   WE are a republic.  The republic is being weaken by people with no skin in the game.  If you not put any thing in, why should you expect to have a voice in what comes out?  Most people I know want a whole lot less government and that of course means lower taxes, but also means more freedom which is really the bottom line.  More Freedom.  Let me handle my assets/resources as I see fit.  Maybe I will be better off, maybe not.  For the people who thinks government is the answer, they ought to go in a jail cell so the government can provide all their needs and provide total security.  Why should 20 million people in NYC be able to tell upstate NY farmers how to do their jobs?

[vabeachman]

and you can call me a bigot because I absolutely believe in the freedom of people to be free from other people trying to take away their assets/resources. 

[coyotejoe]

But you have no problem with taking away "some people's" right to vote.

[vabeachman]

No I don't have any problem with it.  I worked in the inner city for more than 5 years.  I seen the buses lining up to take greedy to vote.  If you don't have any first hand experience and have not seen it with your own eyes I imagine it is pretty easy to be fooled by the mainstream media.  It was a badge of honor among the residents of that area to get a government check.  Not only that, they knew how to take advantage of the local churches and other charitable organizations.  It was a cesspool of humanity.  The residents of this area only cared about getting theirs without putting anything in.  If you put into the system you should have more say so over what comes out of the system.  I believe that is a very conservative value.  As a Christian I also believe there are some people that truly need help and that these thieves of our society are preventing us from giving the truly needed that help they need.