GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2012, 16:19   #1
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,157


Resolved...

Children of voting age living at their parents' home rent free should vote as their father tells them.

Discuss among yourselves, but I find it to be self-evident.
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 16:21   #2
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,722


How would he know?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 16:28   #3
Angry Fist
Lifetime Membership
The Original®
 
Angry Fist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 24,398
Only if the dad is a Republican...
__________________
I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, s**t-kickers, Methodists, and the GTDS.
Angry Fist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 17:27   #4
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,157


Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
How would he know?
Good point. Maybe better if each taxpayer gets an extra vote for each dependent over 18.
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 19:23   #5
G-19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
Children of voting age living at their parents' home rent free should vote as their father tells them.

Discuss among yourselves, but I find it to be self-evident.
Are they some how not capable of making their own decisions on who to vote for? Why should it be as their father says? Why not their mother?

If they are of age and living at home for free, it has to be ok with their parents. It don't remove their rights.

Last edited by G-19; 05-02-2012 at 19:26..
G-19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 19:52   #6
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,157


Quote:
Originally Posted by G-19 View Post
Are they some how not capable of making their own decisions on who to vote for? Why should it be as their father says? Why not their mother?
Well, I would think it would go without saying that her husband would tell her how to vote....
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 20:00   #7
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


If their father is intelligent, he can convince them rather than make them. If you've raised your kids right, they will make good decisions. Don't let that stop you from letting them making mistakes. That's how most of us learned maturity anyway.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 05-02-2012 at 20:00..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 20:17   #8
Jonesee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,242
If you have done your job as a parent:

By the time your kids are old enough to vote, they should be mature enough, intelligent enough and confident enough to make up their own mind.

Last edited by Jonesee; 05-02-2012 at 20:17..
Jonesee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 20:21   #9
lancesorbenson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
Children of voting age living at their parents' home rent free should vote as their father tells them.

Discuss among yourselves, but I find it to be self-evident.
I think I might support a return to allowing only property owners to vote. Kids who leaching off their parents probably aren't really voting much.
lancesorbenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 20:43   #10
Jonesee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancesorbenson View Post
I think I might support a return to allowing only property owners to vote. Kids who leaching off their parents probably aren't really voting much.
This practice was abolished in 1812-1860.

The 15th amendment in 1870 expanded the ban and widened the protection.

By virtually all accounts, the law you propose was used in the past to allow a voting class of only the wealthy landed population.

Post civil war, it and literacy tests were used almost exclusively to prevent minorities from voting.

I must misunderstand what you are proposing because it sure sounds like you are trying to turn the clock back to 1870 and are advocating the practices that were used to limit control of the law to just the white rich.

Heck, if that is what you are advocating, let's bring poll taxes back too. What do you think about $50,000-$100,000 due at the polling station? I'm still voting are you? Let's limit the voting electorate to only those of the population that have proven they have the ability to earn and retain substantial wealth. Maybe we need a poll tax substantially higher than that to keep the likes of me from voting... By your logic, the normal work-a-day man can't understand the high finance of government. Right? So let's nail everyone with a tax only the wealthiest can afford.

It's all tongue in cheek of course, but think about what you advocated in your post.

Last edited by Jonesee; 05-02-2012 at 20:58..
Jonesee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 21:07   #11
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesee View Post
This practice was abolished in 1812-1860.

The 15th amendment in 1870 expanded the ban and widened the protection.

By virtually all accounts, the law you propose was used in the past to allow a voting class of only the wealthy landed population.

Post civil war, it and literacy tests were used almost exclusively to prevent minorities from voting.

I must misunderstand what you are proposing because it sure sounds like you are trying to turn the clock back to 1870 and are advocating the practices that were used to limit control of the law to just the white rich.

Heck, if that is what you are advocating, let's bring poll taxes back too. What do you think about $50,000-$100,000 due at the polling station? I'm still voting are you? Let's limit the voting electorate to only those of the population that have proven they have the ability to earn and retain substantial wealth. Maybe we need a poll tax substantially higher than that to keep the likes of me from voting... By your logic, the normal work-a-day man can't understand the high finance of government. Right? So let's nail everyone with a tax only the wealthiest can afford.

It's all tongue in cheek of course, but think about what you advocated in your post.
There is no constitutional right to vote in national elections.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 21:09   #12
Jonesee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
There is no constitutional right to vote in national elections.
There is a constitutional amendment that bans the type of law he advocated and protects classes of voters. I footnoted, please go read it.

You are using circular logic. My sons used to do that when they were young.

Last edited by Jonesee; 05-02-2012 at 21:16..
Jonesee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 21:16   #13
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesee View Post
There is a constitutional amendment that bans the type of law he advocated. I footnoted, please go read it.
Amendment XV

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv






I don't see anything guaranteeing the right to vote in national elections. It just says that you can't be discriminated against based on race, color or servitude.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 21:22   #14
Jonesee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,242
Keep digging young man. Look at the precedent law and the subsequent clarifications.

I've seen your posts before and I completely understand when you take a stance, your points will be far ranging and not always to the point. I choose not to participate in a debate you will no never acquiesce. As I've observed, you have never admitted a change in your stance ever.

The question to the poster was and to you is: Are you advocating putting laws in place that have been banned since the 1800s by statute and constitutional amendment, and precedent?

It is really just a yes or no answer.

Last edited by Jonesee; 05-02-2012 at 21:23..
Jonesee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 21:22   #15
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesee View Post
There is a constitutional amendment that bans the type of law he advocated and protects classes of voters. I footnoted, please go read it.

You are using circular logic. My sons used to do that when they were young.
No, there is no guaranteed right to vote in national elections. Boortz explains it in this book.




If the right to vote is guaranteed then why is Jesse Jackson Jr. introducing legislation to do just that, guarantee the right to vote?

http://www.fairvote.org/rep-jesse-ja...t#.T6H5elLfW0M
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 21:22   #16
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesee View Post
Keep digging young man. Look at the precedent law and the subsequent clarifications.

I've seen your posts before and I completely understand when you take a stance, your points will be far ranging and not always to the point. I choose not to participate ina debate you will no never acquiesce.

The question to the poster was and to you is: Are you advocating putting laws in place that have been banned since the 1800s by statute and constitutional amendment, and precedent?

It is really just a yes or no answer.
See post below yours.

Last edited by Ruble Noon; 05-02-2012 at 21:23..
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 21:24   #17
ChuteTheMall
What Difference
 
ChuteTheMall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sinkholeville
Posts: 57,364


Raise the voting age to adults only.

A 29 year old pot head living in Mom's basement is not an adult, a 20 year old Marine is an adult.










I guess administering it would be a challenge


OK, how about voting on tax day, turn in your return in order to vote. Bring photo ID with Form 1040 & etc.

If your refund exceeds your taxes, you're not a taxpayer, you're on welfare, and you don't get to vote this year.
As your consolation prize, take home a pound of delicious government cheese, while supplies last.
__________________
"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know."
ChuteTheMall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2012, 21:32   #18
Jonesee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
See post below yours.

You never answered it. Circular logic again.

Read your history books or pay attention in your civics class if you are still in high school. You cannot have a poll tax, a literacy test, or a requirement to own land to vote.

Are you advocating those laws be put on the books again?

Again, it is really just a Yes or No question.

Last edited by Jonesee; 05-02-2012 at 21:44..
Jonesee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 00:16   #19
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,722


Instead of limiting the vote, how about we simply level out the people with skin in the game?

National budget / # of citizens of majority age = your share

And everyone who wants to vote, votes.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 00:18   #20
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,722


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesee View Post
You never answered it. Circular logic again.

Read your history books or pay attention in your civics class if you are still in high school. You cannot have a poll tax, a literacy test, or a requirement to own land to vote.

Are you advocating those laws be put on the books again?

Again, it is really just a Yes or No question.
I used to feel the same way he did but I've migrated. I don't want any man to have another's will democratically forced upon him. Limiting the vote to landowners, net taxpayers, poll tax or whatever allows one man to hold dominion over another man's life. While I understand the sentiment, I disagree with that.

Instead, see post above.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 04:26   #21
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,157


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesee View Post
This practice was abolished in 1812-1860....
10 posts before someone backhandedly called it racist. I love GnG.
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 04:30   #22
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,157


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesee View Post
The question to the poster was and to you is: Are you advocating putting laws in place that have been banned since the 1800s by statute and constitutional amendment, and precedent?

It is really just a yes or no answer.
Read my first post. It also poses a yes or no question.
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 07:05   #23
Brucev
Senior Member
 
Brucev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,189
Efforts to limit the vote reflect a fear of loosing control. Wanting to qualify voters by requiring property ownership, tax payment, military service, etc. demonstrate in this thread that apprehension, specifically loss of political control to other interest groups. It is no different than when demokrats try to disenfranchise servicemen voting overseas by not counting their ballots on the rational that there aren't enough of them to make a difference in the outcome, etc.

The founding fathers wrote the COTUS with an eye to their class. Universal suffrage was no more in view than a broad participatory government. As political power began to accrue to other interest groups, it was inevitable that the franchise would be broadened. It has not at times been convenient for those who would hold on to power. It has been best for the nation. Those who would restrict the franchise by whatever logic are on the wrong side of history.
Brucev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 07:12   #24
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,184


If it were possible, it would be nice, but it's just another pipe dream. Everyone is going to have the ability to vote. That's just the way it is. You'll get a ton of pushback as soon as you try to disenfranchise anyone.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2012, 07:21   #25
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,157


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
Those who would restrict the franchise by whatever logic are on the wrong side of history.
So, Bruce, tell me - when the net producers in this country have allowed the net consumers to strip them of all wealth and hope, and we are left with nothing but a welfare state mired in crushing debt, will we be comforted by the knowledge that we are on the right side of history?
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:15.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,377
438 Members
939 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42