The root of all evil - Free Stuff.

[joeshmo]

You are not trying to deny rights? lol.... Voting is a right. I guess you missed that one.again, Again you are wrong..The constitution is relevant, but we are not in 1776, and the magic of the founding fathers is the constitution is not a statist document as you maintain, rather is quite vague, subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court, which has guided the nation as we continue to emancipate people. You want to turn back the hands of time. Sorry, America is about Freedom, not about restricting freedoms. You are not right in the head... I'll go ahead and end this one by saying yet again you make gun owners look bad!!!! Thank for admitting you are a bigot!!!

[SHMIV]

And, thank you, Joe, for confirming your status as a race baiting slanderer.

Where's Kreutz? I'm beginning to miss reasonable debates...

[joeshmo]

I'm no race baiter, I'm not the one wanting to strip people of their rights. That would be YOU. You have established your credentials repeatedly, you make firearm owners look bad.

[joeshmo]

Joe, shame on you for race-bating in the style of Jackson or Sharpton. Nothing I've said supports those accusations.

Shame on you for malignantly implying that I have anything against those that have selflessly fought for my freedoms.

Actually, shame on you for ALL of those baseless accusations that you have just attempted to put on my shoulders.

Everything you have said supports those allegations. You want to disenfranchise the poor, who are out of work in a recession, and the majority of those in this nation who are on welfare are in inner cities, and are a minority. Therefore you are you are disproportional in who you single out who is disenfranchised. In fact, your notions are contrary to not only the above noted law of the land, but the civil rights act. In fact, you are the poster-child for guys like Al Sharpton to point to and say "see, they are bigots" because you would disenfranchise many minoritys. The south during the 1960s tried many avenues to keep minoritys from voting, including literacy tests, employment tests, and a host of other ways of tilting the tables in favor of whites. You are proposing what was defeated nearly 50 years ago. It's time for you to put aside the cross burning, and stop advocating supremacy, under the guises you try to hide behind.

[SHMIV]

Funny, that... the guy who is going off half cocked is telling ME that I make gun owners look bad. Whatever.

You do not even know me outside of this forum, Joe. I have no desire to disenfranchise the poor. If you DID know me, you would know that I AM the poor. You would also know that I contribute, voluntarily, to homeless shelters. You would know that I go out of my way to help people that I've never even met before, with out giving a single damn thought to their skin tone.

You would know that my responsible, compassionate, and productive parents once utilized the welfare system to feed myself and my four sisters, much like I once did in order to feed my own son. You would also know that we busted our a$$es to get out of that predicament quickly.

You would know about the time I've spent in cities, being the only white guy in the neighborhood, and you would know about the friendships that I formed while there.

But, you don't know these things, Son, just like you don't know countless other things about me because you don't know me.

I don't want to disenfranchise anyone who is out of work during a recession; I've been in that predicament. I got myself back out of that predicament.

Race has absolutely nothing to do with my position; productivity does. Plain and simple, if you are not contributing, your voice has no need to be heard. Clearly, that is a blanket statement, and exceptions would apply to those who have been productive in the past and are now physically unable to continue productivity.

Lastly, Jojo, quit being such a drama queen. Really, the way you've reacted suggests that you might believe that I have some power to create law just by posting my ideas on a forum, and you are getting overly emotional about it. Your behavior is silly.

My views on this subject will likely never make it to a session in Congress, much less get voted in. Mellow down.

[joeshmo]

Sure you have the desire to disenfranchise the poor. You stated anyone on welfare should not have the right to vote . You do make gun owners look bad. Read your own words bud.

[joeshmo]

[quote="SHMIV"]

You would know that my responsible, compassionate, and productive parents once utilized the welfare system to feed myself and my four sisters, much like I once did in order to feed my own son. You would also know that we busted our a$$es to get out of that predicament quickly.




[quote="SHMIV"]

They should have been on the do not vote list. ( as well as yourself)

The chance is great that they will vote for what appears to be best for their wallet then, without regard to how it may hurt themselves or others later. . People, by nature, are selfish creatures.

[SHMIV]

I agree, Jojo, we should have been on the "do not vote" list at that time.

However, since we were productive, and are no longer accepting money from the government, voting privileges would be restored.

I never said that accepting welfare should permanently keep one from voting. One should only be banned from voting while accepting welfare. Stop accepting public money for personal use, regain voting privileges.

I like how you just held me to my standards. I hold myself to my standards, too. I came to my "accept welfare, lose your vote" belief long before I ever felt it necessary to temporarily utilize the welfare system. You'd know that if you knew me, but you don't. You'd also know that I held myself to that standard, then, too.

Oh, and wanting to withhold voting privileges from welfare recipients is a far cry from "disenfranchising the poor". A great deal of poor people do not accept welfare. I did read my words, though I'm beginning to think that you haven't read them in their entirety. I don't really need to read them out loud; I've vocalized this opinion enough to know exactly what I'm typing.

[CCFan]

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who opined that as government grows, liberty decreases...

I don't know who coined it, but I also like the following one: "The great thing about a democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid".

I think we have reached that cusp of the vortex where we are teetering on the brink of either pulling ourself back (many more people are starting to become involved with their government, only time will tell if it is successful) or letting the people who vote themselves benefits at the cost of others bring this nation down...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[joeshmo]

I agree, Jojo, we should have been on the "do not vote" list at that time.

However, since we were productive, and are no longer accepting money from the government, voting privileges would be restored.

I never said that accepting welfare should permanently keep one from voting. One should only be banned from voting while accepting welfare. Stop accepting public money for personal use, regain voting privileges.

I like how you just held me to my standards. I hold myself to my standards, too. I came to my "accept welfare, lose your vote" belief long before I ever felt it necessary to temporarily utilize the welfare system. You'd know that if you knew me, but you don't. You'd also know that I held myself to that standard, then, too.

Oh, and wanting to withhold voting privileges from welfare recipients is a far cry from "disenfranchising the poor". A great deal of poor people do not accept welfare. I did read my words, though I'm beginning to think that you haven't read them in their entirety. I don't really need to read them out loud; I've vocalized this opinion enough to know exactly what I'm typing.

Figured it was only a matter of time before you painted a picture of yourself as some sort do-gooder saint. Yawn, everyone has a story.... Social Security is a social welfare program, unemployment and disabily. Your idea is to take voting rights away from the elderly, people who have lost their job and anyone who is drawing disability (ie vets ect). Im sure lots of people agree with you. lol. Your mentality would turn the democratic process into a socialist state real quick.

[CCFan]

Okay, Joe, what's your answer to voting then? When 51% dictate to the other 49% that they don't wish to work but want government programs to continue paying for and providing *their* services, how long before the 49% give up and let it all come crumbling down? Where is the incentive for personal responsibility? Why bother working harder if you can just vote to take more from the people that do decide to work harder? What's so democratic about taking from those who have to give to someone who has not because they voted to?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

@ joeschmo:

"the majority of those in this nation who are on welfare are in inner cities, and are a minority. Therefore you are you are disproportional in who you single out who is disenfranchised."

But what of the argument that to allow these people to vote but not contribute affords them disproportionally FAVORABLE treatment? Who "YOU single out for disenfranchisement" is nobody. They single themselves out by failing to contribute. Hell, it's a better deal than what the government will do to me if I don't pay my taxes. They'll PUT ME IN JAIL and then disenfranchise me as a felon. SHMIV's proposal is to hold welfare recipients to the same standard but with no jail time. What's so reprehensible about that?

And I'll suggest you're also a little off base when you tell SHMIV he's taking the country down the road to socialism by advocating no-contribution-no-vote. I'd say our current situation, where folks can vote to support themselves out of other people's pockets is more like socialism.

[Riposite]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing"


I think we are seeing the truth of this quote in action and I am not sure there is anything we can do to stop it; not without some fudnamental change.

[SHMIV]

Perhaps I should explain why voting is NOT a right.

Understand, I am a big advocate of personal right, and personal freedom. I believe that government should, pretty much, stay out of folks personal business.

I believe that you have the right to all sorts of personal decisions. But, voting is not a "personal decision". Deciding where to place your vote may be a personal decision, and you may keep the vote that you cast a personal secret, but the actual casting of the vote has a very public outcome. It has an effect on the entire jurisdiction, whether that jurisdiction be federal, state, county, or township.

Making a decision on your personal life is a right. Making a decision on the lives of others (voting) is a privilege.

[Kreutz]

I have JoJo the Clown on ignore(highly recommended), so I only saw half the conversation, but voting is not a right, ask a felon.

Incidentally I believe only white male landowners should vote, some may have noticed things have gone entirely downhill since exception by exception has been made to that.

In ancient Athens, the founder of representative democracy, only free men with military training who were not in debt to the state could vote, and that never changed. That excludes welfare cases incidentally.


Athens as city-state lasted roughly a millennium, I'd be amazed if this place has 50 years left.

Reality is racist.

[dorminWS]

I don't think the Constitution or the Bill of Rights mentions voting, but you can't sell the proposition that voting is not a civil right protected under the federal Constitution. Felons forfeit that right as part of the sanction for having committed a felony; and even then they can petition to have those rights restored. It USED to be (originally - before the virtually universal suffrage that is the rule today) conditioned on being a white, male property owner, which at the time pretty much meant the head of a household that was paying taxes. We don't need to roll the calendar back quite that far, but I certainly do like the idea that people who do not contribute to the cost of government or at least be attempting to generate a taxable income should not be allowed to vote themselves benefits that are to be paid out of my pocket.

[ratherfish]

I have JoJo the Clown on ignore(highly recommended), so I only saw half the conversation, but voting is not a right, ask a felon.

Incidentally I believe only white male landowners should vote, some may have noticed things have gone entirely downhill since exception by exception has been made to that.

In ancient Athens, the founder of representative democracy, only free men with military training who were not in debt to the state could vote, and that never changed. That excludes welfare cases incidentally.


Athens as city-state lasted roughly a millennium, I'd be amazed if this place has 50 years left.

Reality is racist.

I'm kinda amazed propogandizing to have forum members shun (ignore) other forum members is allowed. This isn't the "how popular your views are to Kurtz" board and hopefully never will be.
You're free to hit the "ignore" feature any time you want, but i'm afraid an "ignorant" feature doesn't exist.

[dorminWS]

Reality is racist.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You've now used that phrase in a second post. The flint-nosed skepticism of that statement appeals to me, Kreutz, but it is a somewhat superficial observation.

Racism requires an intent to discriminate, I would argue; and reality makes it's decisions based upon the immutable laws of the universe and blind chance. So reality isn't racist; it just doesn't give a sh!t.

There are many (including our government) who, to justify an exercise in social engineering, wrongly label they results of the random walk of reality as "racism" and demand (or in the case of the government, FORCE) remediation in the form of REVERSE racism (the famous so-called "affirmative action"). "Affirmative action" is an appropriate remedy in cases where there was a clear intent to discriminate, but it has often been used where that aforementioned "random walk of reality" has resulted in a less-than-proportional number of a given race being present in a given group. I've seen this happen. It can happen simply because an employeer (or school or other organization) simply doesn't get any applications from blacks/hispanics/whatever. And it can happen just because the employer hired the best-qualified people for the job in every case. That, I submit, is the root of a majority of the residual racial animosity that exists today.

[SHMIV]

... REVERSE racism (the famous so-called "affirmative action")...

I submit that affirmative action is not "reverse" racism, but very straightforward racism. Affirmative action policies presume that the minorities are too stupid, too lazy, or otherwise too inferior to make it on their own.

Frederick Douglass, 1865:

"Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also."

The whole speech can be read here:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... cument=495

[Kreutz]

Reality is racist.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You've now used that phrase in a second post. The flint-nosed skepticism of that statement appeals to me, Kreutz, but it is a somewhat superficial observation.

Its an observation on "blame whity-ism", which has gotten very loud as of late. I do not exaggerate when i say I've heard probably every problem racial group X has had on whites(NY newspaper editorials of course).

"Black people are poorer than whites, blame whitey"

The reality of course, is that blacks are disproportionally to their population % to be sent to prison one or more times in their life, and that the existence of the black father is like that of seeing Bigfoot, the single mother % of blacks is now close to 75%, both of which leads to serious economic problems for that group.

IE reality is racist, as there are actually real issues going on when the "blame whitey" banner is raised.