Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Crim

So, a vote is a dangerous thing?
Mighty slippery slope, there.


17 posted on 06/16/2010 12:46:15 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: SJSAMPLE

If you did something against society and break the law it shows a problem or flaw in your mental or moral decision making. We should not let people who have demonstrated their inability to think of the good of society effect that very society with their views. In attacking society they show they are not fully part of it and should not be given the ability to move that society in a negative direction.


21 posted on 06/16/2010 12:52:38 PM PDT by RickB444 (beat your sword into a plow and you'll wind up plowing the fields of someone who kept their sword.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: SJSAMPLE
So, a vote is a dangerous thing?

Considering what voters (real or fraudulent) put into the White House in 2008, I would have to say "yes".

27 posted on 06/16/2010 12:57:22 PM PDT by meyer (Big government is the enemy of freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: SJSAMPLE

I usually dont do this but...

Why are you hawking a clearly liberal cause?

“So, a vote is a dangerous thing?”

*points to obama*

I’d personally favor going back to where you needed to own property or have a certaian ammount of assets to vote.

You know...like when the constitution was written...

“The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.”

BlackStone.

“Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it altogether. That is one of the most invariable rules of social behavior. The further the limit of voting rights is extended, the stronger is the need felt to spread them still wider, for after each new concession the forces of democracy are strengthened, and its demands increase with the augmented power. The ambition of those left below the qualifying limit increases in proportion to the number of those above it. Finally the exception becomes the rule; concessions follow one another without interruption, and there is no halting place until universal suffrage has been attained.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

*points to obama again*


42 posted on 06/16/2010 1:44:21 PM PDT by Crim (The Obama Doctrine : A doctrine based on complete ignorance,applied with extreme incompitence..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson