Character is not required for candidates by some they just want a hand out and change

[glennac]

The premise was proven with the election of Bill Clinton back in 1992 with 43% of the vote to WH Bush with 37% and the spoiler Ross Perot with 19% assuring Clinton's victory. It was brought out in the election of Bill harassing women and verifiable charges of rape and the fact of his disdain for the military and his draft dodging. Still folks and more women than men voted for him no matter how much of a low life he was.

Now we have Obama in the race with his 20 long year association with his Black racist hate America church and a lot of Americans support him Black and White and on this forum. He gives good feel good speeches and smiles a lot. Clinton did the same thing. I guess we will always have a good percent of the "electorate" to whom character or the lack of it does not matter in the least.

Voting should be a privilege not a right. Literacy tests should be given to at least ascertain if the voter can read and understand a simple statement. Years ago they were required in most states but the liberal Democrats and the commie loving Democratic appointed judges abolished them. Now we have a certain percentage of the voters who only want hand outs and do not understand that to prosper you have to work. What a shame.

[yelram]

The premise was proven with the election of Bill Clinton back in 1992 with 43% of the vote to WH Bush with 37% and the spoiler Ross Perot with 19% assuring Clinton's victory. It was brought out in the election of Bill harassing women and verifiable charges of rape and the fact of his disdain for the military and his draft dodging. Still folks and more women than men voted for him no matter how much of a low life he was.

Now we have Obama in the race with his 20 long year association with his Black racist hate America church and a lot of Americans support him Black and White and on this forum. He gives good feel good speeches and smiles a lot. Clinton did the same thing. I guess we will always have a good percent of the "electorate" to whom character or the lack of it does not matter in the least.

Voting should be a privilege not a right. Literacy tests should be given to at least ascertain if the voter can read and understand a simple statement. Years ago they were required in most states but the liberal Democrats and the commie loving Democratic appointed judges abolished them. Now we have a certain percentage of the voters who only want hand outs and do not understand that to prosper you have to work. What a shame.

If you only knew how many people in the republican base would not be allowed to vote, you might change your tune. Why dont we just have a poll tax too. I'm sure you'd support anyone with black skin not being allowed to vote right? That makes sense, all of those black folk hate whites, and are too dumb to vote.(/sarcasm)

[glennac]

If you only knew how many people in the republican base would not be allowed to vote, you might change your tune. Why dont we just have a poll tax too. I'm sure you'd support anyone with black skin not being allowed to vote right? That makes sense, all of those black folk hate whites, and are too dumb to vote.(/sarcasm)

My comments have nothing to do with the color of ones skin just my belief that some ignorant Americans White and Black have no sense of character or value but only want a hand out. You can add whatever you want to believe to that I don't care. I stand by what I said and if you care to imply other comments to it racial or otherwise you do that on your own and I don't approve or agree with it. Thank you very much.

[bootlen]

That's right, Glenn. If you don't vote for Barak, you would not let black people vote either.

[mrs reb77]

If you don't vote for Hillary you don't let women vote....:rolleyes:

[glennac]

That's right, Glenn. If you don't vote for Barak, you would not let black people vote either.

I beg your pardon Boots, I never implied or believe such a thing. Please reread my op and tell me where you got that. You can not because it isn't there. Perhaps you have a problem understanding a simple statement also. You could have a hard time getting qualified under a literacy test with that logic.:)

[mrs reb77]

Glenn, he (and I) were both referring with a bit a sarcasm to the interjection by yelram and his 'sarcasm'.

(If I'm wrong here Bootlen let me know but that's what I was doing!)

[Tool-Slinger]

I think a [small]poll-tax and driver-licence and HS diploma/GED would be an inproved requirement for voting. And I would like to vote for Condi Rice for president.

[bootlen]

I beg your pardon Boots, I never implied or believe such a thing. Please reread my op and tell me where you got that. You can not because it isn't there. Perhaps you have a problem understanding a simple statement also. You could have a hard time getting qualified under a literacy test with that logic.:)

Mrs. Reb is right. Yelram intimated in a lot more words that since you will not vote for Barak, you would not let black people vote. I simply said what he said in a lot fewer words.

[glennac]

Strange, I getting the feeling here that if you believe that voting should be regulated to at least a point that the voter should be able to show that he or she can read and understand a simple sentence or such then you are some kind of racist. I simply don't believe that you should not be able to vote unless you have a least enough sense to read and understand what you read.

I saying that this should be administered fairly to all and not be weighted toward a persons race, sex or religious belief. Now if that concept is to hard for some to grasp with out going off the deep end then I am sorry about that. Currently the only restriction on voting is a felony conviction, a history of confinement to mental institutions, age and citizenship. I just would like it to be a privilege to vote and you have to show that you can actually read and think even if on a simple level. What's so wrong with that? Granted literacy tests were abused in the South years ago but they should have made them color blind instead of being abolished. That's how I feel about it and you all are welcome to feel different but please don't imply that I think any different than what I have said. It is not true and unfair. Thank you very much.

[glennac]

Glenn, he (and I) were both referring with a bit a sarcasm to the interjection by yelram and his 'sarcasm'.

(If I'm wrong here Bootlen let me know but that's what I was doing!)


Sorry mrs reb and boots, I don't read sarcasm that well, perhaps I might even have a hard time understand the convoluted logic you all were using.:D Thanks for pointing that out. Carry on.

[Tool-Slinger]

Only yelram suggested racism, superman, the rest of us understand. I personally agree with the concept.

[mrs reb77]

It does make some sense that you need to be able to read or at least understand English in order to cast a ballot. That will never be the case though with the "disenfranchised" police running about though. :(

[yelram]

Strange, I getting the feeling here that if you believe that voting should be regulated to at least a point that the voter should be able to show that he or she can read and understand a simple sentence or such then you are some kind of racist. I simply don't believe that you should not be able to vote unless you have a least enough sense to read and understand what you read.

I saying that this should be administered fairly to all and not be weighted toward a persons race, sex or religious belief. Now if that concept is to hard for some to grasp with out going off the deep end then I am sorry about that. Currently the only restriction on voting is a felony conviction, a history of confinement to mental institutions, age and citizenship. I just would like it to be a privilege to vote and you have to show that you can actually read and think even if on a simple level. What's so wrong with that? Granted literacy tests were abused in the South years ago but they should have made them color blind instead of being abolished. That's how I feel about it and you all are welcome to feel different but please don't imply that I think any different than what I have said. It is not true and unfair. Thank you very much.

Didnt they teach you in school? They used that technique before. I'm sure that the blacks wouldnt be disproportionately affected right? And the immigrants? But i'm sure you dont care about them. Every person has a right to vote, regardless of intelligence, you should be happy about that. In my opinion, you dont have enough sense to judge a persons character, that doesnt mean that I have the right to take away your right to vote. You see, here in the US, rights are sort of important, and cant be taken away just because some angry old man feels that people arent voting for who he thinks they should. Why dont we just make it people who own land? Or even better just those who want to vote for who Glennac does, that would be a perfect world. :rolleyes: Or better yet, lets have all the candidates take an IQ test, and whoever wins gets the presidency, we wont even vote on it, take out the middleman.

[Tool-Slinger]

It does make some sense that you need to be able to read or at least understand English in order to cast a ballot. That will never be the case though with the "disenfranchised" police running about though. :(
Agreed Ms Reb77.

He11s-bells, the disenfranchised police are even complaiining that felons are excluded already.

It was only a few years ago proper identification to vote was decried as racist,... remember that? It was an attempt to require proper ID to keep illegal aliens from voting. I think florida or the near vicinity. Education requrement will be considered racism, no doubt, by loopy-loons on the left of reality.

[mrs reb77]

Missouri having a problem with the ID thing for voting also. Seems that requirement is an "undue burden" on people that may not know how to get a picture ID or some such. The original contest against the law was brought by a state lawmaker that didn't have a driver's license and thought it unfair to make him get a state ID.

Voting is a privilege accorded by citizenship. It isn't a right just because you live in this country.

[mark beiser]

The "right" to vote should be reserved for only those not living off public assistance, who can pass a basic literacy test, and should require a photo ID.

Exceptions can be made for disabled and retired persons who receive social security benefits, but were living otherwise self sufficient lives before.

If such a requirement disproportionately affected any particular demographic, it doesn't mean the rules are unfair, it means something needs improvement within that demographic.

A large part of the problem now is that those with their hands in the cookie jar are able to vote people into office that will keep putting more cookies in the jar for them, so the ones seeking office promise more cookie jars with more and new flavors of cookies.
It is a snowballing cycle that has been pulling this country down for decades.

[oloenneker]

Voting should be a privilege not a right. Literacy tests should be given to at least ascertain if the voter can read and understand a simple statement.

Wow, are you serious?

Should we also only allow land owners to vote too?

How about women? Surely they can't be trusted with a vote, right?

What about restricting the vote to only white wealthy people?

How UN-AMERICAN!!!!:mad:

Talk about destroying the democratic process. Maybe we should just have the country run by a Dictatorship?

[oloenneker]

Voting is a privilege accorded by citizenship. It isn't a right just because you live in this country.


And that should be the only restrictions to vote. The only thing that should be required of you to vote is to prove Citizenship, period! Now, I do believe that you should prove that you are a citizen though. But that is easy, if you are a citizen. Those that refuse to prove it, well... TS buddy, those are the rules.

[oloenneker]

The "right" to vote should be reserved for only those not living off public assistance, who can pass a basic literacy test, and should require a photo ID.

Exceptions can be made for disabled and retired persons who receive social security benefits, but were living otherwise self sufficient lives before.

If such a requirement disproportionately affected any particular demographic, it doesn't mean the rules are unfair, it means something needs improvement within that demographic.

A large part of the problem now is that those with their hands in the cookie jar are able to vote people into office that will keep putting more cookies in the jar for them, so the ones seeking office promise more cookie jars with more and new flavors of cookies.
It is a snowballing cycle that has been pulling this country down for decades.

Wow, here comes along another Un-American who does not believe in Democracy. Why do you hate America?

[mrs reb77]

I thought we got past the fact that he didn't mention race or gender?

Why does everyone ass-u-me he is talking about blacks? duh.

So, being able to actually understand what one is voting on isn't a requirement to your way of thinking? Well, let's just go to a few institutions and settle these voting issues right now. Of course we'll have to encourage them to vote the way they should. Maybe give them some incentives. But that wouldn't be buying votes, oh no! We wouldn't do that.

This is a much bigger issue to most people than anything about race or gender. It's listening to people that have no possible clue about the issues but they're voting for someone BECAUSE of their race, gender or looks.

[glennac]

Wow, are you serious?
Should we also only allow land owners to vote too?
How about women? Surely they can't be trusted with a vote, right?
What about restricting the vote to only white wealthy people?
How UN-AMERICAN!!!!:mad:
Talk about destroying the democratic process. Maybe we should just have the country run by a Dictatorship?

Really oloe how can you call me UN-American. I grew up in rural Tennessee in real AMERICA one that believed in self reliance and freedom . Not the nanny state American since LBJ and the Great Society. This has destroyed the one proud land of the free. Folks are wanting a hand out and depend on the Nanny state to tell them how to live and breathe. Back then voting was a privilege not a right and you had to pay for that right not the tax payers. They had a lot more real conservatives back then.

Maybe a country ran by real men and not a bunch of wimps or wackos. Ah those were the days like the theme song from Archie Bunker.

[mark beiser]

Wow, here comes along another Un-American who does not believe in Democracy. Why do you hate America?

I believe very strongly in America and the representative republic set up by our founding fathers, to be governed by democratically elected representatives.
Pure populist democracy would be chaotic at best.

The socialization of America by liberals, with all of their entitlement programs, and the centralization of federal power and control by govenment, is not what America is supposed to be about.


Non producers voting for politicians who promise to get them more stuff, and make the producers pay for it, is not democracy, it is robbery, and is not sustainable.

[oloenneker]

Really oloe how can you call me UN-American. I grew up in rural Tennessee in real AMERICA one that believed in self reliance and freedom . Not the nanny state American since LBJ and the Great Society. This has destroyed the one proud land of the free. Folks are wanting a hand out and depend on the Nanny state to tell them how to live and breathe. Back then voting was a privilege not a right and you had to pay for that right not the tax payers. They had a lot more real conservatives back then.

Maybe a country ran by real men and not a bunch of wimps or wackos. Ah those were the days like the theme song from Archie Bunker.


How can you think that it is nothing other than un-American to believe that certain citizens should not be included in the democratic process for any reason?

Glenn, what is "real" America? Does it only exist in rural Tennessee?

I Beg to differ.

Here in the USA we already have a problem with it's citizens being so dis-interested in voting or the political process, and you think we should limit the voting pool even further? How is that going to further your ideals?

Glenn, it's 2008!! Not the 1950's. Things change, most of the time for the better. But some people don't like change, even when it benefits society as a whole. It's like that everywhere, glenn, and in every country.

How many people do you see living on a hand out? I work for living, I bust my ass to put food on the table. But I also can rely on a small sense of security, that in the case I am injured or killed while doing my job, I can count on some assistance for my family that the programs out there offer. You don't think that the richest country in the world should not help it's citizens in a time of need? How is that a hand out? It's assistance, not fee stuff. Sure there are people out there that abuse the help. Those people should be ashamed of them selves. I used to do contract work for the county. Sure get a free furnace tune up for your white trash trailer with the mile wide big screen TV... But to eliminate all social assistance programs will only cause more problems.

[Collin]

Virtually all Canadian citizens who are 18 or over are eligible to vote. Exclusions continue to apply to those responsible for conducting electoral events: the Chief Electoral Officer and the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer. In addition, as the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed on October 21, 1999, inmates serving sentences of two years or more are not eligible to vote. At the last federal general election, on June 2, 1997, almost 20 million Canadians were eligible to vote.


I say you guys adopt your literacy tests again, then I could freely say that Canada has a greater democracy than the U.S.
Hell, Russia would have a greater democracy if you guys brought back literacy tests.

[glennac]

How can you think that it is nothing other than un-American to believe that certain citizens should not be included in the democratic process for any reason?
Glenn, what is "real" America? Does it only exist in rural Tennessee?
I Beg to differ.
Here in the USA we already have a problem with it's citizens being so dis-interested in voting or the political process, and you think we should limit the voting pool even further? How is that going to further your ideals?
Glenn, it's 2008!! Not the 1950's. Things change, most of the time for the better. But some people don't like change, even when it benefits society as a whole. It's like that everywhere, glenn, and in every country.
How many people do you see living on a hand out? I work for living, I bust my ass to put food on the table. But I also can rely on a small sense of security, that in the case I am injured or killed while doing my job, I can count on some assistance for my family that the programs out there offer. You don't think that the richest country in the world should not help it's citizens in a time of need? How is that a hand out? It's assistance, not fee stuff. Sure there are people out there that abuse the help. Those people should be ashamed of them selves. I used to do contract work for the county. Sure get a free furnace tune up for your white trash trailer with the mile wide big screen TV... But to eliminate all social assistance programs will only cause more problems.

Well oloe I freely admit that I am kind of froze in time and have never really thawed out. It is from 67 when I left TN and went into the Army. After coming back home in Sept 70 from Nam my world had changed for the worse. Instead of the good times in a small community in TN where everyone knew and cared about everyone I enrolled at U TN at Chatt. and ran into the commie loving hippie anti American maggots who migrated to the campuses all over the country. They were protesting the war against the commies and the soldiers who were fighting them. I was put on social probation the first week on campus when I spoted a maggot wearing the Army green dress jacket with a crudely defaced American flag stitched on back with the commie peace sign over the flag. I ripped it off of his back and knocked him down to the ground. He was defacing the flag and the uniform of the Army which is also against the law. I was restricted to going to classes only and banned from all other areas and activities.

I only cared to associate with other like minded Nam vets and for about 10 years I was something of a mental basket case. I wasn't very sociable. I only like country music and oldies but goodies and du wop. My America doesn't care much for MTV and liberals in general. I wish for the America I grew up in and don't care for what has been going on since the Great Society Days of LBJ. Anyhow that pretty well sums it up where I am coming from and I realize it doesn't mesh to well nowadays with a lot of folks. I hope you understand a little of my self analysis crude as it my be. :eek:

[oloenneker]

I believe very strongly in America and the representative republic set up by our founding fathers, to be governed by democratically elected representatives.
Pure populist democracy would be chaotic at best.

How is that? That is what democracy is supposed to be, right? I mean, if you only limited the voting process to "certain" people, then our democracy would be undermined, and our system of government would fail , as the issues voted on would not represent the issues or demands of the population. You would have more representation by your government if you lived in Iran than you would in the United States. Is that what you for see for the US? I do not.




The socialization of America by liberals, with all of their entitlement programs, and the centralization of federal power and control by govenment, is not what America is supposed to be about.



What is America suppose to be "about"? It is a different thing depending on who you ask. But you like to call it "socialization of America by Liberals"... how do you think that happened? Someone voted them into office, thats how. I can only think that if that is the case, then it must be the will of the majority of the American population, otherwise it would never have passed in the first place, right? Just because apparently a smaller piece of the population does not agree with it, does not mean it's not the will of the people right? In democracy there is always a loser. Not everyone will be happy with their government, and only they can hope that more people will think like them and vote their way, to gain the change they seek.




Non producers voting for politicians who promise to get them more stuff, and make the producers pay for it, is not democracy, it is robbery, and is not sustainable.

Well, thats how it works. Politics are all about promises and actions in exchange for votes. Works on all political topics. Conservatives promise reduction in government and taxation, while Liberals tour more social programs. Apparently the Liberals have more popularity, judging by the amount of social programs.
And what does it matter if someone is a producer or a non producer, does that give us the right to revoke their rights a Citizen? I also find it interesting that there is all this hysteria about "non-producers" getting hand outs. Do you know what percentage of the American public is on any assistance programs that should not be eligible? You guys make it sound like 40-50% of the population is on welfare. The reality is that it is only about 7.5 million people. Thats less than 1% of the population.