I qualify on all three, but I don't mind everyone getting a vote. It's the dopes doing the spending of our money that's the problem. The better solution is, no balanced budget, no can run for re-election. Vote for war, your family goes first. Cut any benefit, right after they cut theirs.
republicans. they cant all be this stupid? rape cant get a woman pregnant?
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
I qualify on all three, but I don't mind everyone getting a vote. It's the dopes doing the spending of our money that's the problem. The better solution is, no balanced budget, no can run for re-election. Vote for war, your family goes first. Cut any benefit, right after they cut theirs.
I don't think everyone should get a vote. But your idea on the budget and candidate eligibility would work more or less as well. We certainly seem agree in principle on the rest. Free loaders voting their candidates into office in exchange for entitlements you and I are paying for is where I'm coming from.
The rule should be that no one who gets more back from the government than they put in is allowed to vote, as it is a conflict of interest. I dont care if its someone on welfare, or a person who owns a company getting subsidized, anyone who is a net drain on the system in terms of taxes should lose their right to vote.
A novel suggestion, but hardly necessary...
How about sticking to the general principle that you get to vote (and accept responsibility) for issues that affect the community that you belong to? So on issues of abortion, women of child-bearing age get to cast the vote. If you want to weigh it, you can have some sort of an age scale, so as a woman approaches menopause, her vote that affects the younger generations of women counts for less.
It has a certain democratic (in the Ancient Greek sense) sorta ring to it, doesn't it? As long as you don't infringe on the citizens' other fundamental rights...
Yes, and I have already agreed with you, haven't I?
There's a small difference, as my suggestion would be equivalent to weighing people's vote in proportion to their potential to pay tax in the future, rather than them paying today. However, I have no problem whatsoever if the right to vote gets taken away, once it's demonstrated that someone refuses to realize the potential and doesn't contribute anything. I think that should satisfy all requirements.
I commend you on surfacing a study.
While like pheonix, I suspect the methodology, I asked for data... you provided an abstract of a study .. that is good enough for ET work.
But, also, I am not on the wrong side of any facts... I asked for facts.
The next step would be to get access to the study, but I will pass on that chore.
While like pheonix, I suspect the methodology, I asked for data... you provided an abstract of a study .. that is good enough for ET work.
But, also, I am not on the wrong side of any facts... I asked for facts.
The next step would be to get access to the study, but I will pass on that chore.
I can see Romney now. Mr. Romney, how do you define legitimate rape? Well, first we must ask about her tax status, before we can even get to the question of whether she enjoyed it or not, cause we all know, sometimes they do. Enjoy it that is! Enjoyment leads to pregnancy, and pregnant woman can't say they were raped now can they? But back to taxes,you know I paid no less than 13%. That's like 3 million bucks for a rich guy like me. Talk about getting raped!...It ain't gonna' be a pretty question to answer.
If Akin stays in the race he may win because McCaskill sucks so bad, but may well cost Romney the presidency. Wouldn't that be a kick in the nut's?