• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

But Would My Doublewide Count?

I keep suggesting, anybody who gets direct government payouts, works for the government, or takes government contracts shouldn't be able to vote -- conflict of interest.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Try again?

Most of the young people I served with moved out of Gov't Housing within the first 2 years of their enlistment. That's specifically what BAH is for.
Click to expand...
And you think they'd buy a house to live in the rest of their enlistment even if they could? Who buys when they know they're moving in 2 more years?
 
WildCat said:
And you think they'd buy a house to live in the rest of their enlistment even if they could? Who buys when they know they're moving in 2 more years?
Click to expand...

Wow, is this just "find any random strawman to attack the "other" side with" day or something?

Seriously. At what point did my post mention anything about my personal take on this, much less produce conjecture that I agree with the TP whackjobs?

I simply stated that your post was factually incorrect - which it is, a statement you have chosen not to address while instead attempting to smear me personally.

Whether or not those airmen, soldiers, and/or sailors would or would not buy a house has nothing to do with the length of their enlistments. Many a soldier/sailor/airman has reenlisted, and many have stayed in the community where their last duty station was located. Of course, you have nothing other than pure conjecture and incredulity to support your position, right? K, thnx, bye.
 
drkitten said:
Consider yourself corrected. The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment has been held (most notably in Harper v. Virginia) to outlaw property requirements. "[A] state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."

I suspect that voter qualifications similarly have no relation to handedness or type of watch.

Basically, any proposed restriction on voting needs to have a basis.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Harper v. Virginia was in 1966. So, if we combine the 14th amendment with the subsequent jurisprudence of Harper v. Virginia, then (in retrospect) the 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments were all unnecessary?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Wow, is this just "find any random strawman to attack the "other" side with" day or something?

Seriously. At what point did my post mention anything about my personal take on this, much less produce conjecture that I agree with the TP whackjobs?

I simply stated that your post was factually incorrect - which it is, a statement you have chosen not to address while instead attempting to smear me personally.

Whether or not those airmen, soldiers, and/or sailors would or would not buy a house has nothing to do with the length of their enlistments. Many a soldier/sailor/airman has reenlisted, and many have stayed in the community where their last duty station was located. Of course, you have nothing other than pure conjecture and incredulity to support your position, right? K, thnx, bye.
Click to expand...
What the hell is wrong with you? I'm just pointing out that soldiers aren't prime candidates for buying ahome, because for 90% of them it's not a career and 22 is not the age people buy homes. Of course soldiers are gong to have low rates of home ownership.

I can't believe people are nitpicking at this irrelevant trivia.
 
WildCat said:
What the hell is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

eaaaassssy there.

I think we can all agree that ALL Americans 18 and over should have the right to vote, regardless of whether they own or rent their home. Or even if they live in the mother's basement in St. Louis.
 
Beerina said:
I keep suggesting, anybody who gets direct government payouts, works for the government, or takes government contracts shouldn't be able to vote -- conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Which is all well and good, but it doesn't go far enough. No one that government could effect in any way through action or inaction should vote, because they have the same conflict.
 
drkitten said:
Basically, any proposed restriction on voting needs to have a basis.
Click to expand...

You've shown that any wealth-based restriction is out, but I recall in Bush v Gore that the decision mentioned that it was established that individuals don't have a constitutional right to vote for presidential electors, merely a state-granted privilege, so I'm pretty sure that at least in presidential elections, a judge would have to work pretty hard to stretch one of the three anti-discrimination amendments to a case that it obviously doesn't apply to; people who like their toast buttered side down, for a silly example.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Which is all well and good, but it doesn't go far enough. No one that government could effect in any way through action or inaction should vote, because they have the same conflict.
Click to expand...

Not true. Deciding the exact nature and penalty for laws of harming other people or their property is a perfectly fine use of democracy. Murder, theft, just how much pollution is acceptable in exchange for a powerful economy, and so on.

The goal here is to block people who get actual $$$ from being able to vote for that payout. Let everybody else, who has to pay for it, decide whether it's worth it or not. Of course people who get the money (even if some help pay for it) will vote for it.
 
Beerina said:
Not true. Deciding the exact nature and penalty for laws of harming other people or their property is a perfectly fine use of democracy. Murder, theft, just how much pollution is acceptable in exchange for a powerful economy, and so on.

The goal here is to block people who get actual $$$ from being able to vote for that payout. Let everybody else, who has to pay for it, decide whether it's worth it or not. Of course people who get the money (even if some help pay for it) will vote for it.
Click to expand...

Wait. You were serious?
 
quixotecoyote said:
You've shown that any wealth-based restriction is out, but I recall in Bush v Gore that the decision mentioned that it was established that individuals don't have a constitutional right to vote for presidential electors, merely a state-granted privilege,
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Bush v. Gore is also widely recognized as being bad law, so widely recognized that the decision itself says that it has no value as precedent.
 
Beerina said:
Not true. Deciding the exact nature and penalty for laws of harming other people or their property is a perfectly fine use of democracy. Murder, theft, just how much pollution is acceptable in exchange for a powerful economy, and so on.

The goal here is to block people who get actual $$$ from being able to vote for that payout. Let everybody else, who has to pay for it, decide whether it's worth it or not. Of course people who get the money (even if some help pay for it) will vote for it.
Click to expand...

How arbitrary.

Under these rules, employees of a manufacturing corporation can vote to remove pollution controls, but no government inspectors or researchers at state universities could vote against it.

This is poorly thought out anti-gov hate.
 
quixotecoyote said:
How arbitrary.

Under these rules, employees of a manufacturing corporation can vote to remove pollution controls, but no government inspectors or researchers at state universities could vote against it.

This is poorly thought out anti-gov hate.
Click to expand...

It does have one benefit, though. It means that we could bar anybody who holds any elected office or is a candidate for such from voting.

I do like that irony that holding office makes one inelligible to vote.
 
cwalner said:
It does have one benefit, though. It means that we could bar anybody who holds any elected office or is a candidate for such from voting.

I do like that irony that holding office makes one inelligible to vote.
Click to expand...

True, we wouldn't want those office holders to be able to influence government. That's a clear conflict of interest. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom