The Human Condition.....

[Obvious Li]

That's because you keep repeating the same silly line that Renee has not said. She's giving pretty solid examples of how the Democratic party does NOT deserve the African-American vote, but takes it for granted anyway. You are not countering her arguments at all.

Renee agreed with Obvious Li that certain people they don't like shouldn't be allowed to vote and she included African Americans.



If it's not what she said, why is she disagreeing with my opinion that all American citizens should have a right to vote? This thread is about who Obvious Li and Renee would deny voting to. I'm arguing that all American citizens should have the right to vote and she's claiming that I'm wrong.

what i actually said was  voting should be limited to people of means, property owners, tax payers etc......it is in no way based on color, gender or religion.....merely pointing out that voting should be a function of people who contribute to society.....the givers.....the takers and leeches should have no say in how taxpayers contributions are distributed...personally i would add an IQ voting test as well but the others may disagree..in any case stupidity should preclude you from voting...just in principle

[Anonymous]

The long-term unemployed, renters, bums, students, junkies, environmental activist traitors, occupy hypocrites, effeminate white men and celebutards contribute fuck all to society and have NOT earned the privilege to vote. They should all be used for medical experimentation. Why use cute little bunny rabbits when there are so many white rejects? They can have the satisfaction of knowing they are doing something for their fellow man for once in their fucking lives.

[Renee]

"All men are created equal"



The Declaration of Independence and Constitution aren't about creating unequal, separate classes of citizens.



Well, I've already won the argument decades ago anyway. The US is not going to restrict voting based on class or race. It's unconstitutional, undemocratic and unAmerican.

It's obvious that you only want to believe the popular notion of what those two documents contain and not their actual legal meaning. You have also missed the premise of the argument and supplanted it with your atypical, hysterical, circle jerk nonsense.  



So typical and so tiresome.  



I see no need to further this discussion with you because you aren't able to comprehend US history or the US Constitution and its original intent. Any discussion on the subject is lost on you unless it is framed on an uninformed level that drones like you can understand.



BTW  The phrase "all men are created equal" refers to their inalienable rights endowed by their creator (God). Voting rights are not "inalienable rights", they are "legal rights" or privileges "endowed" by the government.



Apples and oranges Romero, you still don't get it.  

[Anonymous]

"All men are created equal"



The Declaration of Independence and Constitution aren't about creating unequal, separate classes of citizens.



Well, I've already won the argument decades ago anyway. The US is not going to restrict voting based on class or race. It's unconstitutional, undemocratic and unAmerican.

It's obvious that you only want to believe the popular notion of what those two documents contain and not their actual legal meaning. You have also missed the premise of the argument and supplanted it with your atypical, hysterical, circle jerk nonsense.  



So typical and so tiresome.  



I see no need to further this discussion with you because you aren't able to comprehend US history or the US Constitution and its original intent. Any discussion on the subject is lost on you unless it is framed on an uninformed level that drones like you can understand.



BTW  The phrase "all men are created equal" refers to their inalienable rights endowed by their creator (God). Voting rights are not "inalienable rights", they are "legal rights" or privileges "endowed" by the government.



Apples and oranges Romero, you still don't get it.  

That's exactly how I read it to Renee. Created means by well the creator if that's what you believe in. Other rights are really privileges that the government doles out based on which way the popular winds are blowing.



There's no fucking way that people that do not nor ever have contributed to society should have any say in how money they did not earn is spent.

[Renee]

"All men are created equal"



The Declaration of Independence and Constitution aren't about creating unequal, separate classes of citizens.



Well, I've already won the argument decades ago anyway. The US is not going to restrict voting based on class or race. It's unconstitutional, undemocratic and unAmerican.

It's obvious that you only want to believe the popular notion of what those two documents contain and not their actual legal meaning. You have also missed the premise of the argument and supplanted it with your atypical, hysterical, circle jerk nonsense.  



So typical and so tiresome.  



I see no need to further this discussion with you because you aren't able to comprehend US history or the US Constitution and its original intent. Any discussion on the subject is lost on you unless it is framed on an uninformed level that drones like you can understand.



BTW  The phrase "all men are created equal" refers to their inalienable rights endowed by their creator (God). Voting rights are not "inalienable rights", they are "legal rights" or privileges "endowed" by the government.



Apples and oranges Romero, you still don't get it.  

That's exactly how I read it to Renee. Created means by well the creator if that's what you believe in. Other rights are really privileges that the government doles out based on which way the popular winds are blowing.



There's no fucking way that people that do not nor ever have contributed to society should have any say in how money they did not earn is spent.

Well in the US we have that situation because people like Romero think that the "all men are created equal" thing applies to all aspects of society simply because you draw breath.



The truth of the matter is that voting rights in the US were never meant to be handed out like candy apples on Halloween. They were meant as a way for people with skin in the game to decide how their taxes would be spent and where and in which direction the country should take. The welfare state and other big entitlement programs did not exist at the time when voting rights were laid down by the individual states. It's only because politicians in DC did not have the fortitude to stay true to the original premise of voting rights that we have what we have today.



The US has reached a tipping point in it society; the number of tax users has almost exceeded the number of taxpayers. Big entitlement programs and policies are one of the main reasons the US government must keep borrowing money. The tax revenue that the federal government takes in each year can barely pay the interest on the debit; eventually it will all collapse and it is going to be very hard to avoid. The reason being is because millions of voting age, non-producing, people have figured out that they can keep the government gravy train going by voting for political candidates (liberals) that promise increases in welfare, food stamps, free healthcare bennies, etc. If voting rights had been allowed to remained true to their original premise it is likely we wouldn't have this issue on a scale that we see today.

[Anonymous]

Well in the US we have that situation because people like Romero think that the "all men are created equal" thing applies to all aspects of society simply because you draw breath.



The truth of the matter is that voting rights in the US were never meant to be handed out like candy apples on Halloween. They were meant as a way for people with skin in the game to decide how their taxes would be spent and where and in which direction the country should take. The welfare state and other big entitlement programs did not exist at the time when voting rights were laid down by the individual states. It's only because politicians in DC did not have the fortitude to stay true to the original premise of voting rights that we have what we have today.



The US has reached a tipping point is it society; the number of tax users has almost exceeded the number of taxpayers. Big entitlement programs and policies are one of the main reasons the US government must keep borrowing money. The tax revenue that the federal government takes in each year can barely pay the interest on the debit; eventually it will all collapse and it is going to be very hard to avoid. The reason being is because millions of voting age, non-producing, people have figured out that they can keep the government gravy train going by voting for political candidates (liberals) that promise increases in welfare, food stamps, free healthcare bennies, etc. If voting rights had been allowed to remained true to their original premise it is likely we wouldn't have this issue on a scale that we see today.

This is how I see democracy too. It's criminal that people without skin in the game decide how money is spent. The current situation we have in Canada and the USA is a far cry from the original intent. It's also why I no longer support liberal democracy in it's present form. All it does is encourage sleazebag politicians to pander people with my money.

[Anonymous]

Universal voting is a noble ideal that is supposed to encourage everyone to become stakeholders. But on the flip side, if there should be no taxation without representation then it follows no representation if no taxes.

[Romero]

Well in the US we have that situation because people like Romero think that the "all men are created equal" thing applies to all aspects of society simply because you draw breath.



The truth of the matter is that voting rights in the US were never meant to be handed out like candy apples on Halloween. They were meant as a way for people with skin in the game to decide how their taxes would be spent and where and in which direction the country should take. The welfare state and other big entitlement programs did not exist at the time when voting rights were laid down by the individual states. It's only because politicians in DC did not have the fortitude to stay true to the original premise of voting rights that we have what we have today.



The US has reached a tipping point is it society; the number of tax users has almost exceeded the number of taxpayers. Big entitlement programs and policies are one of the main reasons the US government must keep borrowing money. The tax revenue that the federal government takes in each year can barely pay the interest on the debit; eventually it will all collapse and it is going to be very hard to avoid. The reason being is because millions of voting age, non-producing, people have figured out that they can keep the government gravy train going by voting for political candidates (liberals) that promise increases in welfare, food stamps, free healthcare bennies, etc. If voting rights had been allowed to remained true to their original premise it is likely we wouldn't have this issue on a scale that we see today.

This is how I see democracy too. It's criminal that people without skin in the game decide how money is spent. The current situation we have in Canada and the USA is a far cry from the original intent. It's also why I no longer support liberal democracy in it's present form. All it does is encourage sleazebag politicians to pander people with my money.

So your arguments boil down to liberals shouldn't have voting rights because you don't think they deserve them. That's a personal opinion. Too bad it has absolutely no basis in reality.



Renee's convinced she's right and I'm wrong. That's wonderful news for conservatives! She can start a lawsuit, win and hooray! - liberals are banned from voting and Renee is a conservative hero!



Unfortunately, back in Reality Land, Renee would be laughed out of court. She wouldn't stand a chance because of those pesky laws and rights. Her personal opinion that "voting rights weren't meant to" would have no legal standing whatsoever.



It's kind of hard to argue that the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and US history are on Renee's side when not a single judge or court in the country would even pay it any attention. Until reality changes, it's all on my side.

[Anonymous]

So your arguments boil down to liberals shouldn't have voting rights because you don't think they deserve them. That's a personal opinion. Too bad it has absolutely no basis in reality.



Renee's convinced she's right and I'm wrong. That's wonderful news for conservatives! She can start a lawsuit, win and hooray! - liberals are banned from voting and Renee is a conservative hero!



Unfortunately, back in Reality Land, Renee would be laughed out of court. She wouldn't stand a chance because of those pesky laws and rights. Her personal opinion that "voting rights weren't meant to" would have no legal standing whatsoever.



It's kind of hard to argue that the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and US history are on Renee's side when not a single judge or court in the country would even pay it any attention. Until reality changes, it's all on my side.

This is why people don't take you seriously. You put words in their mouths.



I have been consistent that people without skin in the game should have NO say in how my money is spent. Nothing to do with liberals, socialists or even zombies.

[Romero]

The reason being is because millions of voting age, non-producing, people have figured out that they can keep the government gravy train going by voting for political candidates (liberals) that promise increases in welfare, food stamps, free healthcare bennies, etc. If voting rights had been allowed to remained true to their original premise it is likely we wouldn't have this issue on a scale that we see today.

All I've seen is "left this", "liberal that" and "voted for Obama". I haven't seen any mention of conservatives.

[Anonymous]

The reason being is because millions of voting age, non-producing, people have figured out that they can keep the government gravy train going by voting for political candidates (liberals) that promise increases in welfare, food stamps, free healthcare bennies, etc. If voting rights had been allowed to remained true to their original premise it is likely we wouldn't have this issue on a scale that we see today.

All I've seen is "left this", "liberal that" and "voted for Obama". I haven't seen any mention of conservatives.

The left are the ones most likely to make promises with my money to those with no skin in the game. That's not say that fiscal conservatives don't pander. After all, that's how elections are won nowadays.

[Renee]

The reason being is because millions of voting age, non-producing, people have figured out that they can keep the government gravy train going by voting for political candidates (liberals) that promise increases in welfare, food stamps, free healthcare bennies, etc. If voting rights had been allowed to remained true to their original premise it is likely we wouldn't have this issue on a scale that we see today.

All I've seen is "left this", "liberal that" and "voted for Obama". I haven't seen any mention of conservatives.

That's because traditionally conservatives don't promise more welfare or food stamps to the non-producers. They generally stand for cutting or limiting entitlement programs. When the majority of conservatives start trying to loosen the requirements for receiving welfare and food stamps the way Obama and company have done, I will jump on them too. Right now it's the left that is the biggest turd in the welfare/entitlement/toilet and it's long overdue to be flushed.

[Renee]

So your arguments boil down to liberals shouldn't have voting rights because you don't think they deserve them. That's a personal opinion. Too bad it has absolutely no basis in reality.



Renee's convinced she's right and I'm wrong. That's wonderful news for conservatives! She can start a lawsuit, win and hooray! - liberals are banned from voting and Renee is a conservative hero!



Unfortunately, back in Reality Land, Renee would be laughed out of court. She wouldn't stand a chance because of those pesky laws and rights. Her personal opinion that "voting rights weren't meant to" would have no legal standing whatsoever.



It's kind of hard to argue that the Founding Fathers, the Constitution and US history are on Renee's side when not a single judge or court in the country would even pay it any attention. Until reality changes, it's all on my side.

It's not personal opinion, you moron; it's historical fact. Learn the difference before you flap your jaws.  



 As stated previously; the Constitution in its original form mentions NOTHING about specific voting rights. Voting rights and how they would be applied were left specifically up to the individual states.



Again, because you are extremely dense;.....The US Constitution originally granted NO specific voting rights to the citizens of the US. It wasn't until 5 years after the civil war ended that the federal government got involved with voting rights and amended the Constitution.

[cc]

then, that was said before ... before ... before ...

[Romero]

Equal rights aren't only a liberal ideology. They're conservative and libertarian too.



This conversation has gotten pretty convoluted, but I simply can't believe I have to argue that all citizens have a right to vote. It's the very cornerstone of liberty, democracy, patriotism and capitalism.



What's next? "Certain people" shouldn't be able to get married, get an education, or start a business?