Great idea to Save the Country

[Baldy]

We're kinda on our way to that now.

Thank you, Obamanomics!

Accuracy...

[kalm]

Thank you, Obamanomics!

Accuracy...

Obamanomics is Reaganomics Lite.

[CAA Flagship]

Obamanomics....

No such thing.

[death dealer]

agreed...

So, you would disenfranchise my dad, who lives on SS and a few hundred bucks from a state retirement each month?

He's paid up.

[Pwns]

I'm tired of people acting like voting is some kind of sacred, unquestionable right. Just showing up at the precinct to vote is not doing your civic duty no matter what the touchy-feely "the more voters the better" people say.

It is a sacred and unquestionable right. The second statement you made doesn't change the first. EVERYONE who is legally in this country DOES have the right to vote. They also have the right to be lazy and uncaring. Some of you people really need to take a moment to think about this.

Are you in favor of barring convicted felons from voting? Even if it is a felony like unwittingly purchasing stolen property?

[green&gold75]

I'd rather the test be math and science, but then only Asians would have the vote.

[89Hen]

It is a sacred and unquestionable right. The second statement you made doesn't change the first. EVERYONE who is legally in this country DOES have the right to vote. They also have the right to be lazy and uncaring. Some of you people really need to take a moment to think about this.

Are you in favor of barring convicted felons from voting? Even if it is a felony like unwittingly purchasing stolen property?

Yes. You had the right, you gave up the right.

BTW...

United StatesIn the United States, Receipt of stolen property is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2315, defined as knowingly receiving, concealing, or disposing of stolen property with a value of at least $5,000 that also constitutes interstate commerce (i.e., has been transported across state lines).

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proven:

The person received or concealed or stored or disposed of items of stolen property.
The items were moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce.
The items had a value in excess of $5,000.
The person acted knowingly and willfully.
The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person either received, concealed, stored, sold, or disposed of the stolen property.

[Pwns]

So it's okay to barr any felon from voting regardless of what the circumstance are, but someone who is willfully ignorant of basic civics that are required knowledge for anyone to become a naturalized voter is unreasonable?

[89Hen]

So it's okay to barr any felon from voting regardless of what the circumstance are...

You're really reaching. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to be stupid.

[death dealer]

So it's okay to barr any felon from voting regardless of what the circumstance are...

You're really reaching. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to be stupid.

But maybe it should be?

Of course, it would dramatically thin the ranks around here.

[Baldy]

Accuracy...

Obamanomics is Reaganomics Lite.

Really?

You mean how Obama is like Reagan by lowering marginal tax rates to spur economic growth and restore incentives for businesses to start investing and growing again?
Or how Obama is like Reagan by reducing non-defense spending by about 20% or how Obama lowed federal spending from 23.5% to 21.2% of GDP by cramming through his "stimulus package" and Obamacare?
Or maybe how Obama is mirroring Reagan's sound monetary policy by devaluing the US dollar through quantitative easing?

You're right Obamanomics and Reaganomics are virtually indistinguishable.

[kalm]

Obamanomics is Reaganomics Lite.

Really?

You mean how Obama is like Reagan by lowering marginal tax rates to spur economic growth and restore incentives for businesses to start investing and growing again?
Or how Obama is like Reagan by reducing non-defense spending by about 20% or how Obama lowed federal spending from 23.5% to 21.2% of GDP by cramming through his "stimulus package" and Obamacare?
Or maybe how Obama is mirroring Reagan's sound monetary policy by devaluing the US dollar through quantitative easing?

You're right Obamanomics and Reaganomics are virtually indistinguishable.

Yes...you're right. Obama should have listened to Volker more.

[kalm]

.

[JayJ79]

Forget a test, just link voting to paying taxes. If you dont pay taxes, you don't vote.

And if you're an executive of a company that ships jobs overseas or hides money in offshore tax-shelter countries, then you don't vote.

[houndawg]

Forget a test, just link voting to paying taxes. If you dont pay taxes, you don't vote.

And if you're an executive of a company that ships jobs overseas or hides money in offshore tax-shelter countries, then you don't vote.

Better yet you lose your passport and go live by your sweatshop.

[AZGrizFan]

Forget a test, just link voting to paying taxes. If you dont pay taxes, you don't vote.

And if you're an executive of a company that ships jobs overseas or hides money in offshore tax-shelter countries, then you don't vote.

Or buys Olympic uniforms from China.

[Chizzang]

And if you're an executive of a company that ships jobs overseas or hides money in offshore tax-shelter countries, then you don't vote.

Or buys Olympic uniforms from China.

Be careful AZ
Wal-Mart IS China
and we embrace Wal-Mart like it was a valuable family member

[dbackjon]

And if you're an executive of a company that ships jobs overseas or hides money in offshore tax-shelter countries, then you don't vote.

Or buys Olympic uniforms from China.

Or buys campaign gear from China...

[CAA Flagship]

Or buys Olympic uniforms from China.

Be careful AZ
Wal-Mart IS China
and we embrace Wal-Mart like it was a valuable family member

[JohnStOnge]

Who determines the difficulty of the test?

Obama won voters with postgraduate degrees by 13 percentage points.

I am very much aware of the consistent pattern of post grads voting majority Democrat. We could get into a very long discussion about why that might be so (see education establishment). There are gender and racial demographics involved as well.

But I already addressed the difficulty. It's the citizenship test legal immigrants take. It's the test administered to determine whether or not someone knows enough about how the United States works to function as a citizen. See? Pretty appropriate, don't you think? I mean, should you not know enough about how the United States works to be able to function as a citizen in order to vote?

The only tweak would be that you'd have a series of questions that would be on that test and randomly vary them so that people could not just memorize the answers by rote. But the level of difficulty would be the level of difficulty associated with the citizenship test.

And I think you know what would happen if that were done. Of course it won't be done. But you and I both know what would happen if it were.

[JohnStOnge]

Forget a test, just link voting to paying taxes. If you dont pay taxes, you don't vote.

I would go for something like that. What I've thought of in the past is doing it on a pro-rated basis. Kind of like stockholders in a company. If you pay 100,000 in Federal taxes, you get 100,000 votes. If you pay $1,000, you get $1,000 votes.

It makes sense. If you contribute more you should get more say. And it'd create some interesting potential. People might actually support having their taxes raised so they could get more say.

But, to me, there's no way it's fair to have somebody who isn't paying any taxes get as much say in the direction of the country as someone who is paying $100,000 or $1,000,000 or more.

We have a serious problem right now because we have a very large proportion of the population that has no skin in the game or little skin in the game getting just as much say in terms of their vote as other people who have a LOT of skin in the game. It's very easy to vote for politicians who are going to establish all these wonderful programs when you're not the one paying for it. If you're not paying for it, you should not have a say.

[CID1990]

Who determines the difficulty of the test?

Obama won voters with postgraduate degrees by 13 percentage points.

Can the "poll test" consist of a 30 page essay entitled "On Locke: Senseless Supremacy and the Art of Dialect" (or something equally ridiculous) and be graded by a panel of Ivy League history, political science, etc. professors... ? All papers submitted will be graded on the curve and only "A" papers will be deemed sufficient for voting privileges.



It would be a nice compromise because racist **** like JSO would still get to disenfranchise black people... but, Conks would also lose all elections everywhere...

I don't know, SK. I have a post graduate degree, and I know a SH!tload of people who also have them, and most if them would starve to death in a month when the lights go out.

Now, if any liberal ever carried Montana, then THAT would be something.

[AZGrizFan]

Who determines the difficulty of the test?

Obama won voters with postgraduate degrees by 13 percentage points.

Can the "poll test" consist of a 30 page essay entitled "On Locke: Senseless Supremacy and the Art of Dialect" (or something equally ridiculous) and be graded by a panel of Ivy League history, political science, etc. professors... ? All papers submitted will be graded on the curve and only "A" papers will be deemed sufficient for voting privileges.



It would be a nice compromise because racist **** like JSO would still get to disenfranchise black people... but, Conks would also lose all elections everywhere...

I don't know, SK. I have a post graduate degree, and I know a SH!tload of people who also have them, and most if them would starve to death in a month when the lights go out.

Now, if any liberal ever carried Montana, then THAT would be something.

More like a week.

[kalm]

Forget a test, just link voting to paying taxes. If you dont pay taxes, you don't vote.

I would go for something like that. What I've thought of in the past is doing it on a pro-rated basis. Kind of like stockholders in a company. If you pay 100,000 in Federal taxes, you get 100,000 votes. If you pay $1,000, you get $1,000 votes.

It makes sense. If you contribute more you should get more say. And it'd create some interesting potential. People might actually support having their taxes raised so they could get more say.

But, to me, there's no way it's fair to have somebody who isn't paying any taxes get as much say in the direction of the country as someone who is paying $100,000 or $1,000,000 or more.

We have a serious problem right now because we have a very large proportion of the population that has no skin in the game or little skin in the game getting just as much say in terms of their vote as other people who have a LOT of skin in the game. It's very easy to vote for politicians who are going to establish all these wonderful programs when you're not the one paying for it. If you're not paying for it, you should not have a say.

Life's a journey and everyone has skin in the game regardless of how much they pay in taxes.

There are people born with a $1,000,000. They would have far more than that by the time voting age comes around even if they never worked. So they deserve more say than a person born into poverty who works their ass off to the $999,999 level?

[Cap'n Cat]

It is a sacred and unquestionable right. The second statement you made doesn't change the first. EVERYONE who is legally in this country DOES have the right to vote. They also have the right to be lazy and uncaring. Some of you people really need to take a moment to think about this.

Fvck, you'd think some of these Libertarian-leaning Conk dorks would buy that, Jon.