billvon 3,009 #26 December 4, 2010 >This might be a good thing, those that want to vote need to not be on >welfare or other government subsidies. Then you'd only have Montana survivalists able to vote. Certainly not most people who drive (road subsidies) or veterans (many subsidies, from education to healtcare) or most homeowners (mortgage subsidies.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #27 December 5, 2010 don't be intentionally obtuse. You know the point being made. He's saying that those sucking on the government teat, shouldn't be able to vote. Welfare is a complex problem. Giving people an incentive to get off of welfare is important. I don't know that taking their vote away is the right way to go about that though.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #28 December 6, 2010 Quote>This might be a good thing, those that want to vote need to not be on >welfare or other government subsidies. Then you'd only have Montana survivalists able to vote. Certainly not most people who drive (road subsidies) or veterans (many subsidies, from education to healtcare) or most homeowners (mortgage subsidies.) you complain about the polititions using sound bites and clips out of context but you do the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #29 December 12, 2010 QuotePerfect example of someone attempting to apply 18th century thinking to the 21st century. The founding fathers never could have imagined the millions upon millions of people in the US today that live in apartments and condos. While I disagree with only allowing owners to vote..... The FF could not have imagined the internet, so do you think the 1st should not apply to it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #30 December 13, 2010 Quote The FF could not have imagined the internet, so do you think the 1st should not apply to it? which parts of it? The vast majority of it is privately owned servers like this one. In fact I can't think of any government owned servers where I am allowed to post content openly.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #31 December 13, 2010 Quote I don't know that taking their vote away is the right way to go about that though. I've been feelin' ya in your posts lately...but no...it's not the right way... Personally I have no problem supporting people. Their vote plus mine says they get our help. When people like me say it's time to say no....then it's no... I'm an independant...we call the shots... normally I wouldn't be this cocky, but hell...I've been shooting 100% since I was 18...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #32 December 13, 2010 Quotewhich parts of it? The vast majority of it is privately owned servers like this one. In fact I can't think of any government owned servers where I am allowed to post content openly. Say the Govt shutting down this website since they do not like the content. That would be a violation of the 1st. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #33 December 13, 2010 QuoteQuotewhich parts of it? The vast majority of it is privately owned servers like this one. In fact I can't think of any government owned servers where I am allowed to post content openly. Say the Govt shutting down this website since they do not like the content. That would be a violation of the 1st. if the government went in and told the owners of the servers to take something down that wasn't against the law (like illegally shared copyrighted works) then a first amendment argument could be made. But really the way that happens is that someone from some state department office calls a server owner and asks politely. Then the content is voluntarily removed bu the site owner, not by the order of the government. In that case no 1st argument could be made really.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
