Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they don't work but are not on welfare of some sort, I have no problem with them. Perhaps I should rephrase and say leaches of society, those who suck the lifeblood out of taxpaying citizens.
Like corporations and the wealthy...whether YOU want to believe it or not THEY LEECH off society....they use more and contribute less.
But you keep up your anti-American rhetoric to strip rights from people you don't like....and someone will return the favor....sooner or later.
"suck the lifeblood out of taxpaying citizens" ?? Oh really...sounds like you're doing just fine and if you think taxes are too high talk to your other God, the military...talk about leeches!?!?
Or, if you really think your lifeblood is being sucked out (WHINE WHINEWAAAHHH) MOVE TO A DIFFERENT country....isn't that the rightie's advice to others???
How do corporations and the wealthy leech off society? you probably work for a corporaton yourself and they probably pay you so you can survive. If not, you own a business and by your logic you leech off society. Why don't YOU leave the country?
Brian the quote freature isn't working correctly, please go back and change your post....you have Andrea with my post.
The last time this came up, nobody was able to describe a system where people who inherit or obtain wealth from family rather than their own work would also be barred from voting.
If the goal is to only permit people with "skin in the game" to vote, then heirs or donees wouldn't count, either, since their "skin" wasn't of their own making.
You'd need a way to identify and eliminate them from the voter rolls as well, but nobody has come up with a workable way to do that.
It doesn't matter.
If you are self sufficient, and not suckling from the government tit, you are not part of the recipient class.
Uhh, NO, she didn't have any income. Society did not bear the responsibility of her hardship. We, the immediate and extended family, helped out. Dad had some insurance and investments, but the fact of the matter is that the high cost of medical care (over $11,000 per month for mom alone...don't even get me started on the high cost of medical care!) can put any family in dire straits quickly.
And yes, my friend is one of the best that I have encountered in her field. And my exposure to people in her field cannot be considered limited by any stretch. Nothing "stinks" here. That's just a fact that you may choose not to accept. So be it. I see part of the problem as being that her field is not an expanding, growing field. It's sort of like being a Swiss Watchmaker in a Digital Watch world. A dying art.
I'm not looking for an argument here.
What your sister did was perhaps the noblest of acts. Family is supposed to stick together and chip in when needed.
Your friend should have considered getting educated in a different field instead of sitting around waiting for a job in a shrinking and perhaps disappearing field.
I recommend the book "Who moved my Cheese". It changed my life.
Back in the 1700s, there were also race and gender restrictions on who could vote. Do you want to bring those back, too?
There is NO WAY a democracy can survive without universal suffrage. Take away the vote from the poor and middle class, and you don't have a democracy (or "representative republic"), you have a plutocracy. A plutocracy built upon oppressing the poor. A nation of a few, powerful rich, and millions of disenfranchised serfs. That is not America, that is England during the Dark Ages. Do you really want to take us back to the Dark Ages?
If, God forbid, the poor did become disenfranchised, I would vote with my feet and move to a free country. I want no part of a country that strips its citizens of their rights because they are poor.
Why do people always feel that the poor are "oppressed"?
We the People that have the responsibility for subsidizing the recipients are actually the people who are oppressed.
His definition would include women who have made the choice to stay at home and to raise their children (as the cons want); the unemployed through no fault of their own...
Looks to me like the OP wants white men to vote and will find excuses to deny the right to vote to others unlike him.
Nah.
Being a stay at home mother is a noble act. As long as you can afford to do it without government subsidies.
The unemployed are also a different story. As long as they don't ride out the 99 weeks before seeking employment.
Obama would have lost half his voters! Really! How about 90% of the country couldn't distinguish Washington state from Washington D. C. if there was a gun pointed to their heads. And couldn't pick either out on a map. Republicans, Democrats, libertarians whoever. 90%
Yet more proof of our failing public school system.
But, by all means....keep the education funding growing!
No, voting is a right, but with rights come responsibilities. In this case, knowledge of each candidate and issue are the responsibilities.
Honestly, I could deal with the "recipient class" voting if they could prove they know real facts about the issues. Same goes for any other class. We have too many people who just vote for someone b/c they were told to, their name sounds good, their slogan sounds good, Christmas-treeing the thing, etc. That's a huge problem.
This could be resolved by simply taking away the "D", "R" or "I" out of the voting booth.
That way, people would be forced to learn the names and platforms of the candidate.
Benjamin Franklin Had It Right (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/chip-wood/3844-benjamin-franklin-had-it-right - broken link)
A democracy is the worst form of government there is... it's four wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
But we need to face facts, with half the citizens no longer paying federal income tax the country as we knew it is gone. We are quickly morphing into a Soviet style democratic republic (broke and lawless) and by the way most have behaved the American people deserve it.
That's a great analogy.
May I use it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MOVE TO A DIFFERENT country....isn't that the rightie's advice to others???
