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.
We need looser voting laws which allow more people representation in D.C.
There is no reason why someone's right to vote is denied to them simply because of a conviction, I can think of dozens of laws I would deliberately break because they infringe on my freedoms and that would not change my mental capacity to vote between a douche and a turd.
If America wants to occupy third world nations around the globe, I would support allowing the citizens of those nations the right to vote in America's federal elections since Congress screwups will affect them as much as the people in Florida, Texas, or Idaho.
Most importantly since the last couple of generations seem to have no moral issue with spending their children's future incomes on stimulus boondoggles and vote grabbing schemes, I propose the voting age be reduced to when you first attend school, thus allowing the youth a fighting chance to reduce their tax loads and have a remote chance of fiscal freedom.
I would have no problem with removing the right to vote for anybody who lives on the government dole.
People whose sole source of income is derived from the theft of other citizens have shown they do not understand the importance of personal responsibility or are displaying a freeloading mentality and selfish indifference.
These people do not deserve the right to vote and if they want that right should get a job or get out of the public sector.
Public sector service should be a calling to duty, not a get rich scheme of easy work and full retirement benefits.
Let them join the working world for a change!
Why do you foaming at the mouth neo-cons insist on blaming others for the monumental disasters you create? The mature responsible thing to do would be to accept responsibility for your atrocities and shut up for a while and let intelligent mature adults try and clean up the unprecedented disasters you've created but like the rabid dogs you are the more you're rejected and vilified the more you snarl, lash out, whine and blame others. The public has rejected your morally, socially and economically bankrupt policies and have voted to abandon your failed policies. Stop being such sore losers and go back behind closed doors with your corporate and military lobbyists and start planning your next takeover.
I'm curious. What did Republicans do to create the economic crisis we're now in? Were we the ones who sued banks unless they made loans to unqualified people? Were we the ones who ran Fannie Mae when it bought up all these bad loans? Were we the ones who resisted efforts to reform Fannie Mae in Congress? Were we the ones who forced Fannie Mae CEOs to give millions of dollars to Democrats? I just can't figure out the GOP role in this mess. Perhaps you can enlighted us.
I'm curious. What did Republicans do to create the economic crisis we're now in? Were we the ones who sued banks unless they made loans to unqualified people? Were we the ones who ran Fannie Mae when it bought up all these bad loans? Were we the ones who resisted efforts to reform Fannie Mae in Congress? Were we the ones who forced Fannie Mae CEOs to give millions of dollars to Democrats? I just can't figure out the GOP role in this mess. Perhaps you can enlighted us.
Paul Krugman said the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem contributed about 1% to the overall economic problem.
No, let's let make it official and let's appoint corporate CEOs co-presidents and give them a few hundred billion more while the blackmail our country with their Ponzi schemes. That's basically what happened under Bush. The market has been in a tailspin WAAAAY before O got handed this mess but of course the neo-con cowards who caused it waste no time shirking responsibility and blaming others.
You don't really give a crap about Iraq or Saddam do you. If you're such a big supporter of human rights than I guess you're rooting for an invasion of China since they've been butchering, slaughtering, raping and pillaging the Tibetans for decades. Or how about N. Korea. They actually DO have those pesky little things called WMDs. We wouldn't have to lie about that. How about Iran? They're getting pretty close. Why don't you give us a list of wars you wouldn't support. That would be a pretty short list because war mongers are happiest when they're attacking and destroying things. Doesn't really matter what.
Who in their right mind would suggest squandering TRILLIONS of OUR TAX PAYER dollars and bankrupting our country and killing and maiming hundreds of thousands and the torture and human rights violations WE caused was a fair trade off? When we do it it's called spreading democracy. I call it hypocrisy/democracy.
You don't like war, do you? As history has shown, it's the appeasers who get war. It's the fainthearted liberals who lack the balls to stand up to tyrants who get attacked. I'd make the case that I'm the pacifist of the two of us. I like peace, but I realize the only way to get peace is to be forceful, and to use force when necessary. Look at the relationships we have with Japan and Germany. Do you think that came about because we turned the other cheeck during WW2?
When you behave like a *****, enemies see that as a sign of weakness and will attack. So if you want war through weakness, you got what you wanted. Obama is your "man".
Paul Krugman said the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem contributed about 1% to the overall economic problem.
Paul Krugman is a liberal buffoon, a partisan hack who works for the New York Times. He was completely wrong on the GOP tax cuts of 1995, predicting they would be disastrous for the economy. We know how that turned out.
Disagreeing with someone ideologically does not mean they're doing bad.
I'm really glad we voted him in.
Yes, the stock market has been very impressed with Obama's plans for the economy. Ony 2000 points lost since the inauguration. 6000 lost since he locked up the nomination.
The trainwreck that is the Obama admiinistration has shown we need to reform voting standards NOW. Suggestions:
1) Only those paying income tax may vote.
2) Raise the minimum voting age to 25.
The framers were onto something when they said only landowners could vote. They founders knew voting was a privilege and only active contributors to the system should have a say.
We should revert to that mentality today. Only those who show gross income on their tax returns should be allowed to vote. If you don't contribute, you don't deserve the privilege. We use the gross figure so as not to penalize people who play the game but have earned tax credits or other deductions which help the economy (such as charitable contributions and depreciation for rental property).
If you're a welfare momma, you stay home on election day. This isn't a punishment; it's the absence of a privilege. Only those who support the system should get a say in how money is spent. If you only sponge off society, why should you get to vote yourself more benefits?
This would go along way in slowing the cycle of inter-generational dependency the Democrats have created. It would also curtail their practice of getting elected by buying votes as Obama has done. And above all, it will reverse the ever-looming point-of-no-return threshold where more than half the population pays no taxes. (See the Roman Empire).
As for a minimum voting age, I think it's important to have first-hand historical perspective. 1992 seems like yesterday to me. For those who recall, we had a similar situation as we have today. We had an unqualified candidate in Bill Clinton with a thin resume and questionable character getting a total pass. We saw the results; an ineffective incompetent morally bankrupt president whose big legacy was getting impeached. We paid for his inaction against terrorism with 9-11. You could argue Clinton's incompetence and inattention to the job (he spent all of 1998 working on his impeachment defense) caused 9-11 and thus the Iraq War. Economically, Clinton's actions with the CRA were the foundation of the mortgage crisis and the subsequent severe recession we are in. Yes, we are still paying and paying dearly because the media failed to scrutinize Bill Clinton.
The problem is, many young voters don't remember any of this. An 18-year-old is too young to have witnessed the backstory, and to have seen the disaster from a media that does not vet liberal candidates.
The result? History has repeated itself. We again elected a completely unvetted unqualified incompetent dishonest candidate in Obama who, only a month in, is wreaking disaster on this country and this economy. And as with Bill Clinton, America will be paying a dear price for decades to come for not heeding history.
Do you really think a homeless bum living over a grate downtown, or a 20-year-old unmarried high school dropout on welfare with three kids should have an equal say in choosing our leadership as the guy working 70 hours a week, employing five workers, and raising a decent family?
Yes, the stock market has been very impressed with Obama's plans for the economy. Ony 2000 points lost since the inauguration. 6000 lost since he locked up the nomination.
alright Eeeee you have to send me a pm and tell me whos alter ego are you. I think your hilarious and can see what your doing is fun.
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.
