Should Employed people only be allowed to vote?

Well, how do you think?
Criminals, illegals, unemployed people and other so-called "antisocial" parts of our society - are not "useful" for our government, why they're still have their right to vote?
These people don't do anything to help our government become stronger and they often don't do anything only because of their indifference and laziness!

 

So if someone gets laid off because their job got outsourced overseas, they shouldn't have a right to vote?

What if a company finds out that you're going to vote for a candidate they don't like and fire you, you shouldn't have the right to vote?

Don't think you have thought this one out.

 

Sad part is he probably has, and these are positives to him. Along with the fact that just about anyone in business for themselves would no longer have any rights, etc. The really disgusting part here is that such a large number of Americans have died to protect these rights which he now thinks we should throw away so that our Corporate Masters can enslave us in law as well as fact.

Most of us realize that our votes no longer really mean anything, stop being so anxious to take away even our illusions of being free willya.

 

I think you should have to be employed at least 22 months out of 2 years to vote.

- - - Updated - - -

i definately agree this could backfire.

 

Unemployed and criminals, same "antisocial" folks.

Every day conservatives here reinforce why I became a liberal years ago.

 

it just needs to be thought out. also what do you think of communism, liberals are closer to communism then anybody (especially the american liberals).

From Kreitlein's nephew.

 

I think communism is a terrible economic system. What do you think of laissez-faire capitalism? Conservatives are closer to laissez-fair than anybody (especially American conservatives)

 

Soooo, for you every Housewife, Student and Retired Person should not be allowed to vote, what a Dumbarse idea. Disagree, go tell you parents or grand parents and/or your wife staying home to raise the children that they will not be allowed to vote since they are too lazy, we will miss you.

 

if you thought communism was terrible you wouldn't be a liberal. i don't care for it.

 

Where did you get that ridiculous notion from? Rush? Sean? Glenn? False dichotomy.

If you don't care for laissez-faire economics then you wouldn't be a conservative.

 

I'm not conservative i'm for israel and only protect israel.

 

Funny, your misinformed ideas about liberals are very conservative. Since you are not a conservative, are you a liberal?

Where did you get the ridiculous notion that if "you thought communism was terrible you wouldn't be a liberal"? Rush? Sean? Glenn?

 

Yup, because it doesn't matter for these people - who will become next president, because President will not affect on their lives. but on the lives of working class and other employed people - yes!
If you're housewife - you seat at home, goes shopping, teach children, etc and decisions of government doesn't matter for you.
But if you're working man - you should vote because every decision of President will affect on you directly!

- - - Updated - - -

These "parents" voted for years and all we got is just another Obama's term!

 

I'm sorry but I and not going to address the above nonsense because that would give it credit as being worthy of discussion. By the way this is an OLD suggestion and no matter how much you stomp your feet it is not going to become reality, wrap your brain around that fact and find a new "issue".

 

They are all over the place, the main theme being one of confusion and disconnected thoughts. This thread is pointless and belongs in some special section on this board, they can call it Crackpot Corners. Moving on now, too weird for my tastes.

 

The Founders wanted established people who had skin the game to make informed choices about the direction of the country. Now those people are targeted by the Government, who encourages people who are not established, with no skin in the game, to vote themselves raises at the expense of the former group.

But legalizing 20 million more Hispanic 3rd worlders, who couldn't become successful in their home countries, should fix this problem. Progressives only want voting to be symbolic, anyway. They'd be happy if 90% of the country was dependent on Government for their food and shelter and there was no way the left-wing party could lose an election.

 

sounds like another right wing idea to block certain people from voting.

 

Gee, maybe the government should "target" the middle classes for a while.

Conservatives only want voting to be symbolic, anyway. They'd be happy if 90% of the country was owned by the 0.1% and there was no way the right wing party could lose an election.

 

Things were just great in the late 70s, right? I mean, that's what your chart would argue.

Deflect away, it won't change the fact that Dems want millions of anchor babies to permanently skew election results to the point where voting is mostly symbolic.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think "gibs me dat" is a valid reason for voting.

 

Useless persons

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7019

 

Except for inflation creeping up, the 70s were OK. Real GDP growth was 3.3% -- far better than in the 2000s. But the 50s and 60s were very prosperous.

Overall, post WWII, we had stronger growth before the Reagan revolution than before.

What my chart shows is that a bigger and bigger portion of the nation's income (and with it, wealth) has gone to the richest since the Reagan "tickle down" revolution.

It's time to "target" the middle classes instead of the wealthiest. They've been pampered enough.



Deflect away, it won't change the fact that Dems want millions of anchor babies to permanently skew election results to the point where voting is mostly symbolic.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't think "gibs me dat" is a valid reason for voting.[/QUOTE]

 

I think you don't understand why we have an equal vote in this country. It's not because we think everyone is equally insightful or because we think they've equally contributed to the countries productivity. It's not a reward, recognition, and it doesn't necessarily produce our best choices. We have an equal vote because it means we all share equal responsibility for our bad choices.

No one believes even half the folks in this country have anything intelligent to contribute to the process of government. (although we frequently disagree about which half we're talking about). But if we excluded even a small group of people from the process, those people would eventually find a fault with even the best policies and would claim tyranny had imposed that fault on them. And they would be correct. This is how revolutions occur.

America will never have another revolution. Because anything we've ever done wrong was equally the responsibility of everyone who voted for it, failed to vote on it, or failed to convince enough of us there was a better way. As long as everyone has an equal vote.




​

 

No, it's time to get over your 50's and 60's fetish, back when the US was the only real place where a thriving economy could take place. Now other countries have caught up and offer options for businesses and those with means. Apparently you learned nothing from France's recent failed attempt at 70%+ income tax rates. What a surprise. Even rich liberals like Johnny Depp left the country.

 

Other countries would have had faster growth rates because they were starting from a lower point.

This isn't France and isn't comparable. I'm not suggesting 70% tax rates.

But the purpose of my post what to demonstrate the falseness of your implication that economic performance was poorer when the middle classes shared in the prosperity. Simply not true.

 

Completely irrelevant to my point.

Why not? You sit there day after day blathering on about how great the 50's and 60's were, when we had 70-90% tax rates.

The horrible economic conditions in the late 70's is the major reason why Jimmy Carter was a 1 term President. But everything was just great according to Democrat party apologists.