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.
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
No voter fraud Mr. Holder? I beg to differ.....
- 09/04/2012 07:13:46 PM
802 Views
- 09/04/2012 07:13:46 PM
802 Views
The irony of a Republican-leaning person pointing this out... 
*NM*
- 09/04/2012 08:37:33 PM
203 Views
*NM*
- 09/04/2012 08:37:33 PM
203 Views
Why is it ironic?
- 09/04/2012 09:54:10 PM
549 Views
The irony is merely that of the pot and the kettle
- 10/04/2012 01:05:39 AM
436 Views
If you are referring to FL in 2000.....those machines were bought by Dems.....
- 10/04/2012 01:17:26 AM
417 Views
Was thinking more about Ohio to be honest
- 10/04/2012 01:22:55 AM
428 Views
Intentional Voting Suppression is what they are trying to do in Florida right now(due to a 2011 law)
- 10/04/2012 04:22:25 AM
595 Views
Honestly, I'm fine with convicted felons permanently losing their right to vote.....
- 10/04/2012 04:34:31 AM
406 Views
I am also fine with stupid people not being allowed to vote
- 10/04/2012 04:36:20 AM
378 Views
Agreed - stupid people should not be allowed to vote, maybe an IQ test?
- 10/04/2012 05:17:43 AM
375 Views
Also the poor should not be allowed to vote
- 10/04/2012 10:13:27 PM
393 Views
Hey, to jump in here.
- 18/04/2012 04:12:15 AM
378 Views
I don't know about permanently...
- 10/04/2012 02:10:10 PM
403 Views
Who is talking about letting felons vote in prison?
- 10/04/2012 02:24:29 PM
485 Views
The League of Women Voters, for one
- 10/04/2012 08:50:39 PM
398 Views
Well, that is simply ridiculous then, and merits no consideration.
- 10/04/2012 11:53:04 PM
512 Views
To play Devil's Advocate, there's some legitimacy to the concept
- 11/04/2012 04:24:37 AM
465 Views
Sounds like people deliberately missing the point more than anything.
- 11/04/2012 07:45:40 AM
492 Views
Ohio? When? *NM*
- 10/04/2012 04:30:29 AM
157 Views
2008.
- 10/04/2012 04:37:15 AM
379 Views
Once again, Dems were running those polls and counties.
- 10/04/2012 05:19:14 AM
358 Views
they were not in 2004 and still had vote supression and irregularities
- 10/04/2012 04:44:36 PM
387 Views
I think you've got your facts wrong
- 10/04/2012 09:00:55 PM
392 Views
well, to be fair, it *has* been 8 years 
- 11/04/2012 03:49:17 AM
466 Views
- 11/04/2012 03:49:17 AM
466 Views
Fair Enough, my 'memory' is mostly google based on this anyway, from about a year ago and now
- 11/04/2012 04:00:57 AM
456 Views
Stating something doesn't make it true
- 10/04/2012 04:10:33 AM
425 Views
I'm impressed that you wrote so much in reply
- 10/04/2012 04:36:02 AM
390 Views
Then demonstrate that by having the courtesy to rebut it or withdraw your remarks
- 10/04/2012 06:30:52 AM
453 Views
How long voting takes is a function of machines, not voters.
- 10/04/2012 02:08:39 PM
469 Views
It's a function of various factors, that can certainly be one
- 10/04/2012 08:12:08 PM
427 Views
Ohio in 2004 was hinky enough to prompt the only Congressional challenge since 1876s Corrupt Bargain
- 10/04/2012 11:36:52 PM
564 Views
The fact that it's possible doesn't mean it's widespread, nor that every countermeasure is justified *NM*
- 10/04/2012 11:57:16 AM
168 Views
As long as people need not purchase their voting requirements, voter IDs are fine by me.
- 10/04/2012 12:53:35 PM
483 Views