Active Users:1437 Time:30/10/2025 04:20:59 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Hey, to jump in here. callandor1000 Send a noteboard - 18/04/2012 04:12:15 AM
Anybody that has taken more than $1000 dollars in welfare in the last year should forfeit their right to vote for members of congress.

You can have your social safety net, but you shouldn't have the power to vote for people who determine the nation's finances, people who can grant pork to those welfare queens.

Now people that took $1000 dollars or more should be allowed to vote for president since the president has no direct influence on the budget of the US, just the ability to veto. The president is important for he has a massive control over foreign policy, bureaucracy, and nominates people to the supreme court. Those issues affect welfare queens as much as true americans.


I would be on board with this. Except I do have a major issue. There are those who receive more than that, who need it, and are working to not need it anymore. I know that number is small but it is existent. My issue with welfare isn't that people get it. Or even that some of them get it for a long time. It's that people get it who have no intention of not needing it eventually. That group of people does seem to be the majority of them. I work in an environment where I see that all the time. But there are some few who try to get out of it and those people should be allowed to vote completely should they choose to vote.

Your mom. That's right. The cat is out of the bag. Your mom.

My mind isn't always in the gutter, it just has VIP access
This message last edited by callandor1000 on 18/04/2012 at 04:12:45 AM
Reply to message
No voter fraud Mr. Holder? I beg to differ..... Anonymous2000 - 09/04/2012 07:13:46 PM 774 Views
The irony of a Republican-leaning person pointing this out... *NM* Larry - 09/04/2012 08:37:33 PM 193 Views
Why is it ironic? Isaac - 09/04/2012 09:54:10 PM 520 Views
The irony is merely that of the pot and the kettle Larry - 10/04/2012 01:05:39 AM 412 Views
If you are referring to FL in 2000.....those machines were bought by Dems..... Anonymous2000 - 10/04/2012 01:17:26 AM 392 Views
Was thinking more about Ohio to be honest Larry - 10/04/2012 01:22:55 AM 404 Views
Intentional Voting Suppression is what they are trying to do in Florida right now(due to a 2011 law) Roland00 - 10/04/2012 04:22:25 AM 569 Views
Honestly, I'm fine with convicted felons permanently losing their right to vote..... Anonymous2000 - 10/04/2012 04:34:31 AM 380 Views
I am also fine with stupid people not being allowed to vote Roland00 - 10/04/2012 04:36:20 AM 355 Views
Agreed - stupid people should not be allowed to vote, maybe an IQ test? Anonymous2000 - 10/04/2012 05:17:43 AM 350 Views
Also the poor should not be allowed to vote Roland00 - 10/04/2012 10:13:27 PM 366 Views
Hey, to jump in here. callandor1000 - 18/04/2012 04:12:15 AM 348 Views
I don't know about permanently... LadyLorraine - 10/04/2012 02:10:10 PM 377 Views
Who is talking about letting felons vote in prison? Joel - 10/04/2012 02:24:29 PM 461 Views
The League of Women Voters, for one Isaac - 10/04/2012 08:50:39 PM 373 Views
Well, that is simply ridiculous then, and merits no consideration. Joel - 10/04/2012 11:53:04 PM 483 Views
To play Devil's Advocate, there's some legitimacy to the concept Isaac - 11/04/2012 04:24:37 AM 434 Views
Sounds like people deliberately missing the point more than anything. Joel - 11/04/2012 07:45:40 AM 466 Views
Ohio? When? *NM* Anonymous2000 - 10/04/2012 04:30:29 AM 148 Views
2008. Larry - 10/04/2012 04:37:15 AM 354 Views
Once again, Dems were running those polls and counties. Anonymous2000 - 10/04/2012 05:19:14 AM 327 Views
they were not in 2004 and still had vote supression and irregularities moondog - 10/04/2012 04:44:36 PM 360 Views
I think you've got your facts wrong Isaac - 10/04/2012 09:00:55 PM 366 Views
well, to be fair, it *has* been 8 years moondog - 11/04/2012 03:49:17 AM 439 Views
Fair Enough, my 'memory' is mostly google based on this anyway, from about a year ago and now Isaac - 11/04/2012 04:00:57 AM 431 Views
Stating something doesn't make it true Isaac - 10/04/2012 04:10:33 AM 402 Views
I'm impressed that you wrote so much in reply Larry - 10/04/2012 04:36:02 AM 373 Views
Then demonstrate that by having the courtesy to rebut it or withdraw your remarks Isaac - 10/04/2012 06:30:52 AM 430 Views
How long voting takes is a function of machines, not voters. Joel - 10/04/2012 02:08:39 PM 443 Views
It's a function of various factors, that can certainly be one Isaac - 10/04/2012 08:12:08 PM 400 Views
Ohio in 2004 was hinky enough to prompt the only Congressional challenge since 1876s Corrupt Bargain Joel - 10/04/2012 11:36:52 PM 539 Views
I know it's a bit pot/kettle but dude... stay on topic Isaac - 11/04/2012 01:34:26 AM 424 Views
I LOST PORKINS! Joel - 11/04/2012 07:26:41 AM 450 Views
The fact that it's possible doesn't mean it's widespread, nor that every countermeasure is justified *NM* Tim - 10/04/2012 11:57:16 AM 157 Views
As long as people need not purchase their voting requirements, voter IDs are fine by me. Joel - 10/04/2012 12:53:35 PM 457 Views
It's frightening when I agree with you. Tom - 10/04/2012 02:52:23 PM 378 Views
Law of averages, maybe. Joel - 10/04/2012 04:44:55 PM 512 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes