A preview of what's to come in 2012?

[KaosDad]

Travis - nope - you kinda stepped in it. I am also, techically, unemployed having not drawn a paycheck since april. Living off savings, severance, vacation, tax refund & looking into unemployment benefits while busting my ass trying to bring three productgs to market, start two consultancy gigs, earn three certifications, send out 70+ applications a week and the land I own draws NO income, in this economy it's a freaking sink-hole on cash.

And YOU are going to stand between me and my polling place?

This is the problem when slinging absolutes. How about I put up the idea that anyone that still supports separation from the Union should be barred from voting?

See how we can get real ugly with this?


And I own page 2.

[wylde007]

You own land. I don't see the problem.

I would love to be barred from voting if it also meant my state, my beautiful, glorious Virginia, was banned from the Union.

Fair trade in my book.

Like I said elsewhere, electing not to vote should coincide with relinquishing authority from the elected government. If I refuse to vote, then my refusal should be a complete and specific denial of governance by those who are elected.

I do not grant my consent to be governed. How about that?

And if you neither pay into nor receive benefit from, then I fail to see your point. You have no vested interest on either side.

If you receive public funds as a means for survival you should not be permitted to vote. Sorry, that's the way I feel about it. I think the founders would have, too, except there were no such despicable programs in their day which stole money from the producers and gave it to the freeloaders.

No need for it to get ugly. The 1st Amendment is still in effect... for now.

[Paliden]

[quote="wylde007"]You own land. I don't see the problem.

OK Let's go back 250 years where only land owners could vote, let's undo women's vote, let's undo blacks voting. Let's just make the well to do land owner vote like our forefathers did, only the wealthy will vote, sounds like a democrat.
Some how I think there would be 100's of thousands of live and deceased vets disagreeing with you. Maybe your views are good because they will wake up those who obummer has not!!
SEMPER FI

[wylde007]

250 years ago we had almost no taxes and only the "well to do" landowners voted.

Now we have taxes on everything and voters electing those who will distribute those taxes to them.

Your argument still fails.

P.S. I don't believe being a veteran entitles one to any special accommodation under law. I choose not to be subject to the UCMJ and fight illegal wars of conquest. That's a choice I am allowed by my Creator to make, and no one else.

If you (or anyone else) wants to serve the empire and its machinations, then far be it from me to intercede but please, for the love of God, please stop presuming that I owe any of you anything.

Until this country is physically invaded no war has protected my rights. The last one which was a war of defense of liberty was lost by liberty and won by tyranny, under which all military "serve" today.

If we are invaded, I will take up my own arms under the code of Militia and defend my own land and my own rights and I will go to my final reward with a clear conscience.

[gunderwood]

You own land. I don't see the problem.

OK Let's go back 250 years where only land owners could vote, let's undo women's vote, let's undo blacks voting. Let's just make the well to do land owner vote like our forefathers did, only the wealthy will vote, sounds like a democrat.
Some how I think there would be 100's of thousands of live and deceased vets disagreeing with you. Maybe your views are good because they will wake up those who obummer has not!!
SEMPER FI

The aggression is interesting, but probably not needed.

If I understand the argument correctly, Wylde007 is suggesting that anyone who is receiving free government handouts should not be voting for how those handouts are forcefully taken from others. This is common in business as OCI issues.

An interesting extension of this (I don't know if he is suggesting this or not) is implied by your post. I.e. that anyone on the government payroll should also not vote. If there is a conflict of interest from those receiving free monies from the government, isn't there also one from those who wish to extend their own authority and power at the tax payers expense?

In either case, I find it interesting that those opposed to big government hate the idea so much. One of the biggest complaints is that Democrats like to promise others money in order to get elected. E.g. only the rich will pay. Perhaps the most important question is:

How do you plan to stop people who don't pay into the treasure from voting themselves the funds in said treasury?

If you can't provide that negative feedback control in society can it go anywhere else besides anarchy?

[WRW]

I think and correct me if I am wrong, but the Fact that there are only one group of folks in this picture and not a wide range of individuals portrayed as the potential voting block is what CowboyT is referring to.

So, you are saying that the photographer should have found a group congregating together consisting of 6 african americans, 2 hispanics, 1 white guy and 1 other to represent the prison population?

That seems to be the "blatant racism" complaint as far as I can tell. The problem is that that those sort of statistics are averages and have virtually no meaning in a small enough sample space. Given the reality of prison life, I'd be willing to bet that most authentic prison photos show all Whites or all Hispanics etc too.

I.e. there is a non-uniform statistical distribution of all races in prison, but more importantly they tend to self-segregate so that in general any particular (none wide angle) photo will show only one race.

I don't know enough about the author to know why that photo was chosen. Racism may or may not have played a role in the decision to use that photo.

That's kinda what I was thinking. I also have no knowledge of the writer or the photographer, but the picture alone, unless other races were cropped, seems innocent.

[wylde007]

If there is a conflict of interest from those receiving free monies from the government, isn't there also one from those who wish to extend their own authority and power at the tax payers expense?

Kind of like how Congress is the only ones who have any say in their own payrolls when they are, IN FACT, supposedly OUR EMPLOYEES!

We elect them and then they set their own salaries and benefits.

Disgusting.

[gunderwood]

If there is a conflict of interest from those receiving free monies from the government, isn't there also one from those who wish to extend their own authority and power at the tax payers expense?

Kind of like how Congress is the only ones who have any say in their own payrolls when they are, IN FACT, supposedly OUR EMPLOYEES!

We elect them and then they set their own salaries and benefits.

Disgusting.

Worse yet, they exempt them from their own laws.

[wylde007]

Worse yet, they exempt them from their own laws.

The hypocrisy is indeed mindboggling.

[Tweaker]

Hey, I missed the wassist thread. Whew, just in time!

Wylde, I agree with everything you said, as usual.

Back to thread topic...

I di'ent see it, but did anyone actually feel that felons should be voting while incarcerated?

[zephyp]

Dont know about you guys but my copy of the Constitution doesnt stipulate qualifications to vote...if I'm wrong please show me...

[gunderwood]

Dont know about you guys but my copy of the Constitution doesnt stipulate qualifications to vote...if I'm wrong please show me...

Exactly, it was a State's rights issue. A rough time-line: http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

I haven't pushed either way, but the question still stands. How do you keep those who are receiving government monies from voting themselves more of the wealth? People on this site and Tea Partier's get all peculated about government spending, handouts and taxes, but how do you propose to prevent this? Perhaps a more generalized question needs to be asked:

How do limited government proponents convince the electorate to return to our Constitutional Republic, when doing so requires everyone to give up some of their government benefits?

US politics has mostly become about who will get what and who will pay for it. Look at the amendment we just past in VA. Several special classes of people will no longer have to pay personal property tax. Isn't it ironic that during a revolt against government spending and special privileges, those same voters voted to create more of the same? "Well Mr. gunderwood, it isn't the same...see these are veterans and elderly...we have to do something for these people..." BS.

It seems to me that most citizens aren't against special privileges per se, but rather about that other guys special privileges they have to pay for. The monster in the mirror you rage against is yourself...

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship”
- Alexander Tytler 1787

It seems to me that until we the people are willing to face the true nature of the beast, there is no hope of truly restoring our country. The founders were very intelligent and well educated, but limited suffrage was the only way they could come up with truly binding down such corruption. Words on paper, even if you call it the Constitution, mean nothing when 51% envy anything the other 49% own.

So please do tell me, what solution do you have that the founders were too ignorant to think of?

[LFS]

Anyone see a problem with this one?. Nah, me either.

Wow...and you guys wonder why conservatives so often get painted as racists and bigots....

Wow... until you posted that, all I saw was prison uniforms. Had to go back and look for what was referenced.

Same here. I had to go back to realize all the prisoners were black. Perhaps the racist here is the person who immediately leapt to the conclusion that since these few prisoners were black that all prisoners are black.

[LFS]

How do you keep those who are receiving government monies from voting themselves more of the wealth?

Put a cap on how much debt the government can take on. The rest takes care of itself as the hard working, high taxed will eventually "go Galt".

But the thing about land ownership confuses me. Even those who don't own land pay property taxes, just not directly.

[gunderwood]

How do you keep those who are receiving government monies from voting themselves more of the wealth?

Put a cap on how much debt the government can take on. The rest takes care of itself as the hard working, high taxed will eventually "go Galt".

But the thing about land ownership confuses me. Even those who don't own land pay property taxes, just not directly.

A cap already exists, they are just going to raise it. If they don't raise it the Federal government is bankrupt before the end of the year. Also, assuming it could work, that does nothing to keep voters/politicians from doing so, it just would limit the damage that could be done...until they are given the power to increase the limit.

Government runs the following scam. They spend like drunken sailors until the budget is broke and the debt ceiling is reached. At which point they say we have to pay more taxes or lose "essential services." I.e. Instead of cutting all of their pet projects (that are making themselves rich), they want to cut things like schools, police, firemen, etc. The people usually cave and politicians go on their merry way.

[Paliden]

Term Limits, Debit Limits, Get Involved!!!!!! Don't just sit and arm chair quarterback, that's why we are where we are. To many people have over the years have just sat at home and said someone else will take care of it. Well a few took care of it while we sat at home and did nothing. We quit teaching the Constitution in school, we quit praying just about anywhere and we sat at home and just complained.
Get involved, I see more people today going to public meeting, running for office, working on campaigns who never have before. The only way you are going to keep what we have is to be involved and fight for it. AND yes what we have is messed up right now, but we let it get that way. What we have may not be PERFECT but I'll take it over any thing else out there.
During the past 2 years I have seen more people picking up a copy of the Constitution then I have seen totally over the past 50 some years. When was the last time you sat down with your kids, wife friends and talked about whats going on and then FOLLOWED THROUGH!
GET INVOLVED, INVEST YOUR TIME AND SWEAT. It will be worth it.
We the people by the people for the people, it starts at home train them to be lazy they will, train them to work they will. It starts at home

[wylde007]

They spend like drunken sailors until the budget is broke and the debt ceiling is reached.

That is an insult to drunken sailors the world over.

[LFS]

A cap already exists, they are just going to raise it.

A Constitutional amendment defining the cap takes it out of the hands of Congress.

[Taggure]

You know it is really too bad that the politicians do not read these threads as the might learn a few things and then take some Common Sense back and impliment sound policies.

Well we all know here that they would just think of us all as gun carrying nutjobs, but when you really get down to it and read our discussions we do have a wide spread of points of view and knowledge here that is representitive of the American people all patriots in their own way.

[gunderwood]

A cap already exists, they are just going to raise it.

A Constitutional amendment defining the cap takes it out of the hands of Congress.

That would be stronger restraint and harder to raise, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem...the electorate voting themselves others money. A debt ceiling does not change the issue of using tax dollars to fund special privileges. It is a very rare occurrence for any increase in government spending to be shot down on a ballot. Bond referendums and such usually pass.

The founders knew of the fundamental problems with democracy which is why they choose to create a republic instead. The instability of democracy isn't a politician problem, it is a people problem. Politicians run on how much money they bring home because it works...we the people want it. The whole idea is to bring home more of the pie than you put in! It is no wonder such a system is unstable and corrupt.