At the founding of our nation, only property owners got the vote. And while it may seem archaic on the surface, there was a reason for it: That the non contributing not have a say.
And that's how it should be now.
We need to amend the Constitution to allow only the taxpaying and retired the right to vote.
Im sure I am gonna get flamed for this, but I expect it.

& isn't the term "non contributing" subjective ?
Who is going to determine this classification ? You ? Do you consider yourself a "contributing member" of society ? Right wingers complain about
"Socialist dictatorship" under Obama, but isn't this an example of "right-wing dictatorship" ?

You can put on your white hood & listen to Rush Limbaugh now.

-- Modified on 12/25/2009 10:35:12 AM

OK men, listen up.  You too GaGeek.  The only people that should be allowed to vote FOR ANYTHING are people that own real property, active military personnel and or people that have honorably served in the armed forces.

If you are a ward of the state, forget it.  You do not get to vote.  If you cannot feed and cloth yourself or are just unwilling to provide for yourself because of your bad decision making and or laziness, NO VOTE FOR YOU LAZYBONES.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

3 classes of people should not be allowed to vote :

1. Anyone who is not a U.S. citizen & those who can't read & write ( latter provision would apply to listeners/viewers of Fox News & Limbaugh.)

2. Jail inmates & those convicted for violent felonies.

3. Anyone under the age of 18.


As I said earlier, what a buncha wackjobs on this board.


-- Modified on 12/25/2009 10:01:12 AM

-- Modified on 12/25/2009 10:14:39 AM

-- Modified on 12/25/2009 10:15:57 AM

try to defend a bunch of free loaders...

for every $100 dollars you pay in taxes, you get 1 vote.

$1000 in taxes gets you 10 votes, etc.

Every company in the world works this way, the more you put in (% ownership), the more say you have.

Sure people will flame this idea, but generally because they do not like the thought that they actually need to contribute.

& willing to accept voting qualifications that are imposed by the U.S. government. If you, ATL & GOP geezer don't like that, I suggest you & your ilk stage a military coup----------

-- Modified on 12/25/2009 11:52:38 AM

The only reason why people are concerned at all about "who gets to vote" is because we have a government in which the three branches that were supposed to keep each other in check has instead become a giant disaster that arrogates itself ever more extra-constitutional power daily.

This government has seized the power to regulate everything from exactly how much water my toilet uses, to how much of MY hard-earned cash it can seize against my will and give to others -- and under what conditions.

It is a disaster, a sham and a scam.

The only reason we worry about who can vote is we have finally reached the point of no return in which democracy FAILS because people have figured out that they can vote to take away other people's stuff and give it to themselves.

Thus, we debate about who gets to vote; when the real fundamental question is why in the hell government should have these levels of power in a so-called "free society" to start with.

Furthermore, voting has become nothing more than window-dressing to convey a sense of legitimacy to an otherwise wholly illegitimate system.

Representative democracy, when it was first created in this country, worked reasonably well (albeit quite imperfectly) because those who were elected were personally *known to their electorate.* After they returned home, they lived next door. They could not be insulated from their actions.

Now, when our elected officials return "home" it is to live in isolated compounds surrounded with guards and concertina wire. Almost without exception, those who enter such "public service" moderately well off ... leave as multi-millionaires. They are fundamentally immune to their electorate and any meaningful consequences of social disapproval of their behavior.

Representative democracy works fine when a single representative is representing 10,000 people; but fails miserably when s/he is supposedly representing 500,000 (as in representatives) or even 10,000,000 as in some senators. It simply has no effective checks or balances at that level because each individual vote is so diluted.

Furthermore, when someone runs for election and must reach 500,000 people instead of just 10,000 -- s/he is automatically in a boat where massive amounts of money are required. The monetary requirements automatically build corruption into the system such that anyone, to effectively run -- no matter the political party -- is effectively OWNED by people other than those s/he is supposed to represent. Thus, the people aren't represented; and for every election they are presented with a false choice between two people -- neither of whom really represents them. This problem is exacerbated further by the way representatives and other high officials, when they leave government, often walk right into multi-million-dollar "no-show" "jobs" working for the very entities they were supposed to be regulating while in service.

Finally, in dealing with numbers of such scale in terms of electorate and money; everything is media, media, media. And NO "mainstream" medium covers the full story sufficiently to allow an informed decision. (Even if it made a difference.)

Personally, I believe the fedgov needs to be dismantled through massive secession; and reconstituted under mechanisms that eliminate these problems. Otherwise, debating about who gets to vote is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

There are some problems with your proposal.  Just because someone doesn't own property doesn't mean they don't pay taxes.  They're paying payroll taxes, sales taxes and more. Even renters pay property taxes indirectly as those costs are figured into the monthly rent.  

I'm sorry but the original intent of the Constitution doesn't makes sense here as women weren't allowed to vote and the number of representatives for each state was "determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,  including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Contributing is a pretty simple definition.
You work. Period, the end.
It's really pretty simple. Since I dont leech off the productive, um, yes, I consider myself a "contributing member".
There is no dictatorship in this. How do you assume all taxpayers are "right wing?" Not all liberals are lazy and stupid, some actually do have jobs. The point is, those who drift thru life with no intentions of ever contributing or producing, get no voice.
You must EARN the right to a say.
Most ppl vote with their pocketbooks, even liberals.

Your proposal would give them the right to vote and citizen ship.

Before you get on your high horse and crapping on the board, go sit in a corner and think about. Regurgitating someone else's stupid  idea without thinking about the consequences is doubly stupid.

The idiot who wrote the article hasn't peaked out from his cave in the last 300 years.

No, what is whacked is some cracked out POS who lives off govt assistance, with no intention of ever being a productive memeber of society getting a say over what happens with MY money who that I earn.

Heard of welfare reform. It pays to read and understand. Also, lot of foreigners own millions of acres of land in this country including the Saudi's and muslims you hate ( do you really) so much on this board.

Most liberals are very well off. Suppose, they got rich by free loading. Unfortunately, the evidence points the other direction.

I tire of your smart ass attitude. If you think there arent people who arent free loaders even under welfare reform, I got a bridge to sell you in Arizona. It pays to actually live in the REAL WORLD as opposed to sitting up on a pedestal assuming everyone is inferior to your divine intelligence.
I know several people who have lived their ENTIRE LIVES on assistance that havent the slightest thing wrong with them. Welfare comes in many forms. It pays to read and understand THAT.

Why don't you put the Pentagon Generals in-charge of running the country?

oooops, that would be Military Dictatorship dufus.

Apparently you didnt; read my response above very well. ALL TAXPAYERS get a VOTE. Period.
Regardless of political affiliation or party.
Read it again, and get back to me.

Why dont you just let the crips and bloods make decisions for the country?
That's about what it has come to. The lazy, stupid,and violent, deciding what the decent working citizens do with their money.
Enough is enough.
THough it doesn't sound liberal and fresh, tough.
Time to do what must be done.

Government gets way with what it does is, we the stupid people allow them to manipulate us with sound bites that manipulate emotions.

They create fabricate scenarios which never come to be real but, we the stupid people hold on it. When we the stupid people stop being manipulated, stop being selfish, start thinking of the common good and start demanding the government what we want them to do instead of letting the government manipulate us, things will change.

Ain't going to happen with this present generation (greed, lack of integrity, hate, took care of it) may be the future generation will learn and change.

I dont exist for anyone but myself. Laws that protect us from one another that make sense (murder, rape, theft, etc) are all that is needed for the common good. THis country was founded on rugged individualism, period.
I dont owe anyone a g-damned dime regardless of their circumstances. If that's selfish, so effing be it. The true definition of selfishness are the NON productive demanding more and more of the working's income.

regardless of anything else. Sex, race, religion, etc. This is the only criteria.

The criteria I added would be in addition to criteria we ALREADY have. Did I say the other requirements to vote would go out the window? Before you make stupid assumptions, why dont YOU think, as you sneeringly tell everyone else to do.

This goes along with your Anti-Muslim piece from a few days ago.Btw, I only learned about your OP after being contacted by several hobbyist friends
who are members of various minority groups.All of them are gainfully employed, btw. Needless to say, they were not happy about your OP AT ALL.

What racial element was introduced?
I said... and will say it again very S-L-O-W-L-Y, that being a TAXPAYER is the only requirement, aside from the ones we already have.
Color, sex, religion, sexual pref, or economic status would not matter, nor would being "right wing" or "left wing".
So, tell me...how is that racial?
As for the rest of your post, I dont care if someone likes what I post or not. I say what I feel. I am not here to play tiddlywinks.

Yeah, where was the racial element? Taxpayers come in all colors.

just curious

What does that have to do with anything I have said here or the topic? and I will ask again, WHERE was any racial comment made?

Can't say that I'm surprised-------LOL !

and Id say that your inabaility to address the actual subject and instead make it about who I see professionally speaks volumes about you.
I never made a racial reference, I said, taxpayers only should have the vote.
In fact, I said it several times.
Perhaps you need a remedial reading class.
Next....

And, you base your opinion on a opinion piece.

-- Modified on 12/25/2009 7:00:10 PM

-- Modified on 12/25/2009 6:59:23 PM

Um, I have always felt this way. I just found an article to back up what I was saying. (duh)
Sure, the bum with $2 to go buy a single can of beer at the store is paying taxes to an extent, however, I meant the income kind.
To put it simply, since so many need it spelled out: YOU NO WORK, YOU NO VOTE

who have not been able to find work, so I guess you would not allow them to vote also. We are skating on thin ice when we try to dictate who is worth to vote.

particularly predominately white biker gangs you could have mentioned. I know, I know, I'm just being PC.

Thin ice goes both ways.
That doesnt mean we should go to the extreme of allowing anyone to vote when it;s clear they have no regard for the ideals of the nation, they are simply voting to further their own dependence on the working.
When the out of work find a job, they get their voting rights restored.

from people like you. Voting rights are based on each person having equal inherent value, and citizenship. When we leave those considerations we can end up with what the Nazi's did in Germany.

1. All "citizens" dont have inherent value. Someone is not an asset to this country just by the sheer fact he/she was born here. I know a guy who is a "citizen" of this country who is 27, has never worked a day in his life, steals and cons from anyone he can, doesn't support his kids (guess who does?) and repeatedly breaks the law (domestic violence, petty theft, vandalism).
Yeah, what a valuable asset to society, who should enjoy the rewards that everyone else gets. Riiiight....
2. Nobody argued for rounding up the non working for extermination, we simply stated that those that vote actually contribute something to society. But I would expect a reference to Nazism for actually expecting those who want a SAY in society to actually CONTRIBUTE to it.
The only people who need protecting are the working, from the non productive.

Kudos! I love it!
You are right on target. Matt's response was pure liberal drivel.

sounded like a right-wing idiot-----

All you lefty weenie-boys got the sh*t beat out of you by ALTHunter!!!!

She took you all on beat the crap out of you!!!!!

That means, "it made sense".
Thanks.

that all people have the same inherent value.

The opening of the United States Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:

   "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Anything you don't understand about that?

Oh, and the "governed" include those whom you are saying should not have a vote.

We are all created equal. But the fact is, we all are NOT equal after that. What we become, what we do with our lives depends on us entirely.
As I said, at the nations founding, this was the RULE. That to vote, you had to own property.
(The same guys who wrote the above Declaration, btw, had no problem with it)
Why do you think that was?  If they viewed everyone as equal, why was it that way?
Because everyone is NOT equal.
SOme are producers, some are not.
As I said, nobody suggested going on a genocidal spree, we simply are saying, you want a voice in the governings, you pay taxes and abide by the law like everyone else.
We DO take rights from felons. For instance, they cant vote, or own guns. Where is their "inherent value?" We took their rights bc they have proven they cant live among everyone else.
Likewise, the non producers have proved, in most cases, they can't live by the rules everyone else does. Fine. They just get no say in what the producers decide.
There is NOTHING demonic or evil about that. Nothing at all.

has not ruled, when, and under what circumstances, once someone is born, they lose their equal status. Sounds like you need to take your case to the Supreme Court. Good luck with that!

LMAO...people lose their "equal status" by breaking the law. Apparently you dont follow very well.
Felons lose rights  ALL THE TIME. They cant vote, or own firearms. Even some non felonious offenses can result in the loss of the rights (domestic violence can cost you the right to own a firearm).
I notice, how instead of addressing the POINT...that everyone isn't the same, and have proven they aren't, you issue silly retorts like "the USSC has not ruled that yet, good luck!"  LMAO...we fucking know the USSC hasnt ruled on that yet. That's not the discussion.
People lose equal status all the time, and it's perfectly legal. and my suggestion is just an extension of it.

Stop and meditate for a moment on the premise of your argument. You view a suggestion of limiting voting only to those who contribute more to the gov't than they recieve from the gov't (ie net producers versus net recievers) as an attempt at increasing voter support for conservative candidates.

Do I have to point out the inherent flaw in your argument, or can you spot it on your own?

My sister-in-law's sister has been on welfare since her first child was born. She had 6 children altogether, the last two children are still under 18, and she is still on welfare today. She's been on welfare for about 20 years altogether. My tax dollars raised all 6 of her children. The truly priceless part of this is that for about 6 of those years, she charged my sister-in-law $50 a week to babysit for her own niece while my sister-in-law busted her ass to get an education. Nice huh?

to vote, to the same relin1quishing of rights and protection under the law, demonstrated toward criminals. Keep going! Let's see how deep of a hole you can bury yourself into. Even criminals do not lose all their rights, based on they're alive and they're human beings (being created equal).

Again, your arguments are just an opinion. Nothing you're saying will pass muster with any court in the land, let alone Supreme Court, and if it doesn't, all you have to say is mote. That's why I have nothing further to say to you, on this matter.

"Say good night Gracie!"

Even the unemployed pay taxes while looking for a job. Unemployment benefits ARE taxed. In addition, they pay sales taxes on purchased items just like the employed. They pay property tax on their homes, if they are not renting. Drive from Philly to NYC on the NJ Turnpike to seek employment....you pay a tax. Buy gas to make that drive....you pay both federal and state taxes. I was layed off on Dec 31, 2007. I never got a 'get out of jail free' letter saying I no longer had to pay any taxes. I also continue to vote in elections. IMHO, there are, however, some who should not have voting rights. Those that are incarcerated come to mind, as do the mentally incompetent. I live in a voting district in which there is a State run facility for those that are not mentally competent. When voting in the recent general election, I waited in line to vote behind several individuals that were patients from that facility. As one entered the voting booth, he called out, "Now who am I supposed to vote for again"? Two others replied, "Obama". The caregivers accompanying the patients, said nothing. I'm certain they were coached on who to vote for during their van ride to the polling place. The caregivers were definitely not McCain supporters.

Have you noticed, liberals have the HARDEST
time with reading comprehension ???

Ive posted MANY articles here, where the conservatives (all tho we dont write well) READ, AND PICK UP ON MUCH MORE, than the liberals do...lol

Oh well, liberals dont get the fight this country is in, and they believe in way to much ''morally''
where conservaTives believe in applying principles to governance...Kassem Reid (atl's new mayor) WAS ELECTED BY 800 VOTES, THAT CAME FROM THE BANKHEAD AREA, Mr Reid was ALSO THE WORST CHOICE FOR ATL, I mean the bill collector is about to come collect the city of atlanta, AND MR REID IS PASSING/promising MORE HANDOUTS.. FuGG that!!!! ...HELL YEA YOU SHOULD BE A TAX PAYER TO VOTE

''-If you vote for somebody who seriously fucked up the country while they were in office, you loose the right to vote. ''


YOU WOULD LOOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE, I know you voted for Obama!!! AND HE IS THE SAME NUT JOB BUSH WAS, BUT WORSE, and you dont even know that, yet...


but when it is ALL said and done, YOU WOULD LOOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!! I think the people who have a financial obligation to support their country via, taxes, AND THEN PAY THEM ''PATRIOTICALLY'' should have more of a say ON HOW THEIR MONEY IS SPENT..

Cause the way its looking right now, THE PEOPLE PAYING TAXES HAVE NO SAY, and the people who dont, GET ALL OUR MONEY..

AND YES, I pay taxes, and do a few other things for this country, ONTOP OF OWN ''REAL PROPERTY''

-- Modified on 12/26/2009 3:32:08 AM

why can't conservatives spell ?-------good idea to check a dictionary now & then. Also, it's spelled "revisited".

I love when better spellers point out my mistakes, dont ya'll....


- are you also a teacher, or do you do this for free? revisited and revisted is a word..ITS IN THE URBAN DICTIONARY, where I chose to choose revisted

If you look at the writings of John Adams and other founders, it was understood that Americans had a common culture (inherited largely from Britain) and a common value system broadly-based on middle-eastern monotheism (e.g. Judaism and Christianity) as germanicized into Protestantism.

In fact, many of our founders felt so strongly about this that they wrote about it; specifically noting that a common value system in which the overwhelming preponderance of Americans acted MORALLY was an absolute prerequisite for freedom.

So while there may well have been differences; there were enough similarities to say that we had a common culture and society.

Evidence of this commonality of culture can be seen in that many saw the influx of Catholics to be a threat to that culture -- thus giving rise to the "No Nothing" party. Likewise, the imposition of literacy tests in Massachusetts for the specific purpose of preventing Irish from voting. Again, to preserve an essentially (at that time) British and Protestant culture.

(For the record I am neither British nor Protestant. I am not saying that is the way things should be, but rather the way they were.)

At the time of our nation's founding, one of these common cultural values was, indeed, rugged individualism.

A rugged individual is NOT a "tribal lone wolf" -- but rather a member of the group who does whatever he can to make sure that he does not become a burden upon the group, is willing to question restrictions, and will take risks in the pursuit of rewards.

Rugged individualism -- the ability to take oneself out into vast empty spaces and build something; or to load your family into a wagon train with the willingness to work like a dog to make that family prosperous -- is what BUILT this nation. Without it, the millions of people sucking on the taxpayer teat would starve.

First off, there is significant disconnect with all of the suggestions, proposals or whatever.  Start by understanding the big picture democracy first. Most of these suggestions are selfish and myopic and are some variation of Tyranny, dictatorship or blend of both to satisfy ones selfish needs.

Answer the following questions form democracy perspective:

1) Who is government?

2) What is it?

3) Where did it come from?

4) Why did it come from?

Then answer the following:

1) Is it possible to kill of all the poor?

2) Who created the poor?

3) Would you kill yourself if you know you are going to loose your wealth and before you become poor (has happened to many so set you ego aside when answering)?

4) Will you kill all you poor relatives?

5) What is empathy?

6) Finally, to all you call yourselves, devout Christians, what does "Taking care of thy brother mean to you"?

Worthless materialistic attitude!

& I applaud your honesty. Btw, it's spelled "too
much". Did you go to college ? ( the ultimate rhetorical question------ ).

Why do I keep hearing "Duelling Banjos" in my head now ?----------

This is the last post of yours Im reading, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT POLITICS???

"Once you're old enough to know how to work a voting machine, you should get the right to vote."

Willy, you can't be serious. My 8 year old son always goes into the voting booth with me, and has done so since he was 4. He knows perfectly well how a voting machine works, and I even let him push the buttons. I want him to know from an early age what it involves, but I sure as hell don't believe he is entitled to cast his own vote.

My own mom (who didn't raise me thank God)has lived off welfare her entire life. It was first the check for having kids, then when Clinton signed welfare reform that limited the amount one can be on it, she came up with a disability scheme. I sat there as she explained that she tried the physical disability of carpel tunnel, but getting it for a mental problem was easier. So, she tried "depression".
LMAO
She gets disabiility for depression. Another man I know gets disability for back issues and pain, he cant work, yet he goes four wheelin', partying, cuts the grass, put shingles on a house, etc.

wow, more emotional boo-hooing.
LMAO

Wahhhhhhh! Wahhhhhh!   Im not responsible!!! Wahhhh!   Gimme a fucking break. I so tire of it. Nobody is MADE to be a crackhead or a loser.
If we live under a social contract, why arent those who dont pay anything required to? Where is their contract?  That's where your argument falls flat. In essence what you are saying is... the working exists for those who refuse to. You endorse slavery. Perhaps it's people like you who want to see this country collapse should leave. Your belief system (That nobody be held accountable for a damned thing) that's causing all the problems.
But please feel free to whine some more about how cold hearted I am with stupid hysterical diatribes like the one above.
Sheeeesh.

Ive said this about 10 times already. One more time: Ypou dont work, you dont vote.
That means rich spoiled heiresses that are famous only for spending their parents money would not vote. Those who arent on assistance but are just bums wont vote. Someone that does get some form of assistance but does work would vote.
The WORKING and RETIRED vote. Do I have to say it again?

There is no "right" to murder, rape or steal.
That denies the right of the person whose life is taken, forced into sex, or whose property is taken.
Everything is NOT a "right". What's Unamerican is the attitude that you and your ilk have the right to the fruit of others labor. You DO NOT.
The forefathers had such laws in place. You consider them "unamerican?"

There is no "right" to murder, rape or steal.
That denies the right of the person whose life is taken, forced into sex, or whose property is taken.
Everything is NOT a "right". What's Unamerican is the attitude that you and your ilk have the right to the fruit of others labor. You DO NOT.
The forefathers had such laws in place. You consider them "unamerican?"

You and the other liberals on this board have a way of dancing around anything I have actually said. Raods, hospitals, etc benefit society at large. Welfare doesn't. I dont benefit at all from my taxes going for someone who had children they couldnt afford. The crux of the issue are parasitic elements of society. Nobody was bitching about roads, but I expected that side step into irrelevancy.

My gawd, you truly are clueless.
The fact we have families and "social networks" doesnt mean that we cannot support ourselves and our own without a "collective".
My grandparents had 12 kids and raised them without one dime of taxpayer money.
THAT is what I mean by individualism.
NO, there is no such thing as total isolation in human relationships. That also doesn't mean everything I do should be for everyone else, either.
It's called a COMMON SENSE MEDIUM. and while you are spouting Abe LIncoln quotes, here is one for you:

"You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence"

Suck on that one.

Now I know you are bat shit crazy.
A emotional, hysterical 16 yr old girl? (teen girls dont tend to use logic much and think entirely with emotion)
A child molesting baby killer?
Someone illiterate? Mentally insane?
KNowing how to work a voting machine, and having the mental capacity to know HOW to vote and why are two different things. Do you think the blind should get to drive too?
rofl

Your point of view could have been sensibly discussed in debate "Devil's advocate" fashion, ( voting restrictions based on intent of Founding Fathers ), but 2 things mitigated against that ( & don't get hot under the collar when I bring this up---constructive criticism ).

1. Your previous post where you railed against Muslims ( many saw that as bigoted ).

2. You live in a section of the country where Blacks were long denied the right to vote. It "appeared" that you were trying to disenfranchise certain voters.

It's a pity, because this could have been a good discussion.







-- Modified on 12/26/2009 12:06:00 PM

-- Modified on 12/26/2009 12:06:56 PM

We are at war with Muslims. and it's "bigoted" to not allow them into the country, especially considering the havoc wreaked in other countries (look at France and England)?  The difference between me and others is that I dont care about what is "fair", I care about what is right for the country. Everything today is about fairness  rather than rights and responsibilities and justice. We (as in our nation) dont have to allow anyone to waltz into our country as they please, to the point of suicide, to appear "fair".
We have a right to limit who comes here, and what kind of ppl come here. There is nothing bigoted about it, but those who have no thought as to what or who we allow in, will see it that way, bc in the end the well being of America doesn't matter, only being "fair".
Me living in a part of the country that oppressed blacks has nothing to do with this discussion. My idea was this, and this only: Taxpayers get the vote. This didn't exclude anyone by race or anything else. So, I really dont know what that has to do with where I happen to live.
I;d gather that many folk think like me, from allover the country.
But again, neither of those things have anything to do with the topic here. People who look for reasons to dismiss it, will.
As for the flaming, that went on both sides.
I generally keep my cool until someone makes a smartass comment or goes off the deep end, or dances around the subject.

I was incredibly naive.She merely dug herself into a deeper hole---hoisted on her own petard, so to speak. You can't reason with someone who has such a hateful mentality.Let her go on her merry way, being a minion of Limbaugh/Fox News.

emotional boo-hooing, where did you get that.

I place my money in a bank acct, then use the bank statements as proof of income, and I pay taxes. Yes, indeed.

Whether it would swing the vote isn't really the point, these people dont have the mental capacity to vote, or the maturity, or, just plain lost the right when they victimized others.
Thinking people realize this.

What hole? The one you imagine? Just bc someone doesn't answer the way you demand, doesn't make them hateful. This thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with Muslims, OR where I am from.
What does past opression in the South for blacks have to do with this thread? Not a damned thing.
Maybe you need to take a reading comp class like someone else on this thread.

we have the ballot box.

You seem pretty hostile about people floating ideas. Sure you want to hang out on this board?