Posted on 08/25/2008 2:11:01 PM PDT by mainestategop
Well... I do think welfare recipients and people in companies that get subsidies shouldn't vote but I don't like the idea of literacy tests. All this sounds like a slipery slope.
But yes you are right some people just aren't eligible to vote.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53292
I think Neal Boortz also voiced similar opinions about voting. He mentioned it in one of his books and even wrote about it here http://boortz.com/nuze/200609/09252006.html
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53292
I think Neal Boortz also voiced similar opinions about voting. He mentioned it in one of his books and even wrote about it here http://boortz.com/nuze/200609/09252006.html
I’m gonna BUMP this! This is really good!
Matter of fact I don't trust any government period!
Nicely stated.
People have the right to be ignorant and vote because we've decided that is more fair, more equal, more democratic somehow (outside certain exceptions). We like lots of votes for the same reason that we like lots of speech and debate. We toss together any number of points of view and the best idea should win out. Does it always? No. But the alternative is limiting points of view, perhaps alienating someone with a fresh idea, a new perspective.
I wonder about the unintended consequences. In trying to limit the consequences of personal failure, we must by necessity, limit the successes of others. By attempting to limit "ignorant" voting, we will necessarily limit those who may not be ignorant, just original, just different, just out of the mainstream.
Our Founding Fathers did not hold mainstream views, many did call them ignorant, among other things. The American Experiment was certain to fail because people could not govern themselves.
Maybe those voices were correct. Maybe people cannot govern themselves for long. But extraordinary things happen in America. We are an extraordinary people. Despite the evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that America will right itself, that the thugs won't win out. Continuing to allow other voices, other opinions leaves room for another group of Founders, more voices out of the mainstream. I'd hate to silence them and lose the possibility.
This is true that it is a right taken for granted by those who have not had to make sacrifices. But either a person believes that a right to vote is inalienable or not.
Once the government removes a right, it is gone for good.
A free country gets the chance to vote its freedom away only once.
What you advocate, if implemented, would be applied against us. Just ask Suzette Kelo about the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A welfare recipient may get off welfare and vote R. In fact, I know a couple even in liberal Massachusetts.
I am perfectly happy to reform welfare to restrict how it’s used, but I am opposed to restricting the right to vote.
Tragically, “We don’t know what we’ve got till it’s gone”. It’s up to those who see to convince those who can’t, it seems to me.
Colonel, USAFR
I continue on my quest to recommend David McCullough’s biography of John Adams as a lesson in liberty.
And a history of an overlooked patriot and founding father.
Haven’t read it yet, though it’s on the (too long) list. I did enjoy “1776” (not McCullough?)a couple of years back, loved “The Path Between The Seas”, which I read right after arriving in Panama for a three-year tour.
Reading Chester Wilmot’s “The Struggle for Europe” (still) and just finished C.S. Lewis’ “The Weight of Glory” a couple of weeks ago. Writing like that you rarely find these days. I also borrowed my daughter’s “Calvin and Hobbes” anthology till she made me give it back when I took her back to college on Friday!
Colonel, USAFR
Thanks for the reading suggestions! I will add them to my list.
I am reading Richard Reeve’s biography of President Kennedy. It’s fascinating, but not nearly the great read that the McCullough book was.
I have another biography of Teddy Roosevelt, “Mornings on Horseback” also written by McCullough and then another book by Thomas Fleming “The Perils of Peace”.
I am trying to limit how many books I keep (I recently had to downsize my collection. Twice. LOL). I have been giving away those that I enjoyed but I don’t want to keep. I haven’t had one that I didn’t like yet though.
You may have overlooked that the psychiatric profession and psychologists are heavily liberal.
So that automatically creates the tool for liberals to dispose of the voting rights of their conservative critics. Which of course they would do in a heartbeat.
Why live here if there are additional restrictions on voting?
A person is not obliged to vote, but an adult citizen, legally registered and in good standing with the law must have the legal right to vote.
I know... I stated clearly in the article as well as another post about Mike Savage that Psychology is junk science just like evolution and global warming.
“Owning land is a legitimate requirement I think...”
Is that before or after the mortgage(s) are paid off?
Woah, this is from a while ago. Actually, later in the thread I think I realized how many people owning land would exclude from voting. So many people including myself rent apartments, rooms, houses, etc. that the actual voting population would go down significantly, I think.
This isn’t a subject I’ve researched much. I was just throwing ideas out there.
Honestly, I wish more people would vote, especially those who later complain. The past few years, especially local elections, there were fewer people at the polls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.