No. It means that unemployed and those struggling won't have a voice. And, if politicians only campain to people who are currently employed, then the parties will only serve to aid them, not help problems that effect the homeless, unemployed, etc.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, it would keep retards who live off of welfare from electing fellow retards. -- Michael Berry, American hero.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But that's under the assumption that everyone who isn't currently employed is a stoner who plans to stay on welfare for the rest of their lives. I agree, there are idiots like that, but there are tons that aren't. But if you cut off the ability for people in the lower class and low social economic areas to vote, then it's not addressing any of the problems in those areas. It's just a step to pretending these people and these areas don't exist.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, unlike democrats, republicans don't only care about the people who vote for them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not talking about Democrats vs. Republicans. Politics is kinda like advertising - you have a target market. If only people earning a certain income are able to vote, then they are your target market. And if they all have jobs, then employment and homelessness isn't going to be one of your policies, or 'pitches'.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But not all people are crappy enough to only help those who voted for them. Only helping people who vote for you is like giving a bribe, or at least a kickback.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, politicians don't only help those who vote for them. And, I noticed in the last election in Australia, many people were more concerned with issues that only concerned themselves, rather than society as a whole. But knocking out an entire class that doesn't earn a certain minimum every year tips the table far too much. It will just increase the gap between poverty and wealth. Pretending the opinions of those less well off are irrelevant changes the whole game.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Jesus loved poor people, the end.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

why do you keep replying to this troll?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not everyone who is unemployed living off welfare is stupid. Yes, many aren't the brightest/apply themselves, but you don't know if they are trying hard to get jobs and doing whatever it takes to help themselves or their family.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People living off welfare are not retards!!!! What the fuck happened to helping the poor and needy? How can you be so proud of being a christian but want to take rights away from impoverished individuals?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Fuck the poor. They made their bed; they can lie in it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Paranormal Activity 2 takes place at the same time as the first one. The lady in this one is the sister of Katie from the first one. It turns out their great-grandmother made a deal with the demon for riches and promised the soul of their firstborn son. This is the first boy born since then so the demon is there to collect. Ultimately he uses Katie to kill the two parents and take their baby

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Everyone should have a voice. They should be able to vote, considering some of the things we vote on would affect them. We can't vote for them simply because we haven't been in that position so we don't know exactly what would be best for them. Not to mention that them living off welfare for the moment doesn't mean that they have bad judgement or don't follow politics. Also: the Republican and Democrat comment was totally irrelevant.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Also, since this is obviously about American politics, it isn't compulsary to vote in America. I'm not certain if this is true or not, but surely people who have jobs and are better off are more concerned and interested in politics, and far more likely to vote than retards who can't even be bothered to get a minimum wage job?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not about who votes now, it's about who is eligible to vote. If you're living off the state, in no way, shape, or form, should you be allowed to vote. Because 99% of the time, you'll vote for the party who will give you the most money for being lazy.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Living on welfare does not mean you are a bad person or you are lazy or stupid, you hate-filled bigot! Everybody in America deserves the right to vote. That is the only way it could be fair.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Honey, where did I say any of that? Sheesh don't flip you idiot. I didn't say any of that. Freaking moron. I just said they shouldn't vote. Because they will (so would we all) vote for the party that will ensure them the most money for not working, even if they can't work. It's just not fair.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How the fuck is it not fair? You vote for the party that suits your desires, they vote for the party that suits their desires. It's completely fair!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lolno. That's not fair at all. Vote for me! I'll make sure you get paid more! Or "Vote for me! I think you should earn your money as a functioning member of society!" Which will you vote for? Hmm?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I will vote for what ever party I want to vote for just like you will. That's the only way a Republic can work. If we prevented people from voting we would no longer be a free country. You can use the same argument to say that rich people should not be able to vote because they will obviously vote to lower taxes for the rich and cut services for the poor.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You can use the same argument, but the rich aren't being paid by the government.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What difference does not make? Both the poor and the rich are American people and therefore deserve the same rights. We should not take away peoples right to vote due to sex, race, socioeconomic level, or any other reason. Every American deserves the right to vote even the poor. In fact, the poor are extremely underrepresented and we should make an effort to increase their say in the government.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Your argument is nothing. You just say everyone has a right to vote. What about minors? Tell me, if someone said they would compensate you for voting for them, would you vote for them? You, I've gathered, are a liberal. If you could make $40,000 A year just by electing Sarah Palin, you'd do it, wouldn't you? Well, if that would be your only source of income, you would. I would. That'd ensure all the votes of those on welfare go to Palin. All. That's not right. I have no problem with poor, rich, white, black, legal immigrants, women, or middle-class people voting. People should vote. But when you don't have a job and the government is sustaining you? No. You shouldn't be able to vote. That's not right.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The opinion of the poor and the people on welfare is just as important as your opinion or my opinion. To denounce that is to denounce the principle of republican democracy and all the values America is built upon. There is absolutely nothing wrong with voting to increase welfare. Most people on welfare already have one or more jobs but still struggle to get by. Naturally people vote to suit their own interests. There is nothing wrong with that. If one party increased welfare to much and disrupted the economy everyone would get mad and vote for the other party and the system would balance itself out. That is the beauty of American politics. I do not consider myself a liberal. I consider myself a Libertarian because I want to increase individual rights and prevent the government from stifling the free market with regulations. I would not vote for Palin for $40,000. I might consider doing it for $400,000 but only if I was really desperate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're repeating the same (flawed) argument. Yes. Their opinion matters. No, I'm not denouncing their opinion. They simply should Not be able to elect the leader who will pay them most. No, most welfare cases aren't like that. Most are lazy people. Most are people who refuse to secure a job. Voluntarily unemployed. Not all. But most.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Fuck you! People aren't on welfare because they are lazy. The vast majority of people on welfare work very hard at one or more jobs and many more simply can't find a job. Millions of people who receive benefits from welfare are children who can't work anyway. How dare you call people on welfare lazy! That is the most selfish thing I've ever heard in my life. Why the fuck shouldn't someone be able to vote for the leader that benefits then the most. God. You are so fucking ignorant! I hope you lose all your money and learn what it's like to be poor. I would teach you a lesson.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not gonna respond to that tirade of inappropriate language and general abrasiveness. Chao, chica.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lolchica.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Any sane person would be deeply offended and angered by your hatefulness and shortsightedness. So again, FUCK YOU you self righteous asshole. Nice way of hiding your lack of rebuttals, muchacho.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No. I have a rebuttal, but I refuse to share it with an insane chica incapable of defending her side. Plus, you didn't even present a case! How can I defend against nothing? Chico* Not muchacho. Eres antipática, chica. ¿No puedes comprender que hablo? ¿Por qué? ¿Eres tonta o muy perosoza?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Without the principle of "One man, One vote" America would cease to be a free democratic nation. Denying votes to the poor would be a form of blatant discrimination. I fail to see how universal suffrage would hurt the country. Voting to increase welfare is not a bad thing. In fact, welfare is not helping the poor as much as it should. As I explained before, when too welfare is extended so much that it hurts the economy, people blame the current party for bad economic times and vote for the other party instead. Therefore, you need not be too afraid that poor people voting to increase welfare will damage the economy. I don't know why you feel the need to address me in Spanish. Perhaps it makes you feel smart and superior or you are trying to show off or prove that your not dumb. I really don't know. Your spanish is not all that sophisticated. There is no reason why I should have said chico instead of muchacho because both words mean boy, though they have diffe...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Also, as we are not on a first name basis, perhaps it would be more suitable for to address me with the usted conjugation. While I am am the topic of suitable ways of addressing people, calling someone "chica" is rather degrading.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lolno. "Denying votes to the poor would be a form of blatant discrimination" What!? Where did I say that? With all due respect, (which isn't a lot...) you're an utter imbecile. I didn't say deny votes to the poor. Not all poor are on welfare, and not all on welfare are poor. Governmet programs are so completely inefficient. I guarantee that maybe 1/2 of the taxes/ money for welfare don't get there. Guarantee it. But that isn't the point. Actually, as we are both teens, "Usted" is unneeded. We're informal, as we're still adolescents. But good knowledge of Spanish... Lol. Actually, you're correct about that, but typically when one calls you a "chica" you use the same noun back. Oh and you have yet to present a compelling argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Denying votes to people on welfare (a.k.a the poor) is most definitely discrimination. Since we don't know each other usted would be more proper. However you as you go out of you way to be a condensing jerk I highly doubt you actually give a damn about what is considered proper. I have provided you with plenty of arguments of why denying people the right to vote is bad and I will be happy to provide you with more when you explain to me how America could be considered a free and fair democracy when impoverished individuals who receive welfare benefits (around 20% of the population) are denied a say in the government.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lol. Not all poor are on welfare. And I don't know what a "condensing jerk" is. I sure as heck cannot cool water particles sufficiently to revert into the liquid state.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I never claimed that all poor people were on welfare and yes I did make a typo when spelling condescending. Now will you actually respond to my argument with anything other than lol or will you continue to make snooty remarks?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You haven't presented a new argument in about thirty comments. You just keep repeating the same drivel, which I answered the first time you asked.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Mind showing me where? You could copy and paste the part where you explain how universal suffrage is not needed in a free country.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

We have universal suffrage? I wasn't aware the dead could vote, as well as minors. But it isn't needed. Ahem, look at the Articles of Confederation, and how we won a war under them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You know what I meant by universal suffrage. The Articles of Confederation is a dumb document to use as an argument because no one at the time really liked it and it is was replaced by a far superior constitution for a good reason. I've read the document before and I don't recall their being any reference to unemployed, poor, or people on welfare not being able to vote.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Actually, I'm pretty sure that only landowners could vote... I may be mistaken, though. It's a dumb argument? Lolwut? Sure, it was replaced by a better national governing system, but that doesn't mean it didn't work, like you said it wouldn't.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's on of the reasons America wasn't a free and fair society back then. Why do you want to decrease voting rights and become more like the America of the 1700s? We've made so much progress we shouldn't roll back rights. The Articles of the Confederation didn't work. They government was pretty much a mess until the constitutional convention. We are much better off with universal suffrage. America is founded on the principle of one man, one vote. The system works very well. Don't try to mess that up.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. Personally, (besides slavery) the America of the late 18th century better. People had respect back then. I'm not so sure about that. Those living off the government do nothing to improve society, so why should they get to elect our leaders?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

They should get to vote for leaders because they are a part of society and deserve the same rights that you have. How can you possibly think America was better in the 18th century than it is now? People did not have more respect then. When people did have respect, it was only respected straight male protestant white landowners. In the 1700s most people couldn't to read or write, had rotting teeth, died around the age of 55, rarely bathed, and were forced to do back breaking manual labor every single day. Meeting the enlightenment thinkers would have been nice but I would not live in the 1700s for any amount of money.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Uh, once again, do they benefit society? Or do they bring it down? Oh wow. You know what? With all due respect, you're an utter imbecile. Obviously modern technology is much better. Obviously. That's not what i meant. I thought even a half-wit would get that. I Suppose I was wrong. The American SOCIETY functioned much better, stood up for what it believed in, and upheld it's government functions much better than today. Much better. What I would like back is the system of government, and the public civil expectations. Golly how would you misinterpret what I meant?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

When you say do "they" benefit society do you mean poor people, unemployed people, or people on welfare? I'm not sure how to respond because I don't know what you are agreeing. American society did not function better. People were just as immoral and had just as many vices if not more than people today. Women of all classes were treated like property and not given any rights and nonwhite people were treated like animals. Even non-protestants and people of other faiths were oppressed. There was also a ton of classism. If you weren't from a good (rich) family you would not be treated well. Saying besides slavery, early America was awesome is a bit like saying besides, the holocaust, Nazi Germany was awesome. The gruesome exploitation, abuse, and murder of millions of human beings through the salve trade proves just how ignorant and bloody thirsty people were.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Wait...did you seriously just refer to the Articles of Confederation? As though it would help your argument? That's like using the 18th amendment as proof that prohibition is good for our country.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly! People need to learn from the mistakes of the past.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You sound poor.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There is some truth to that. I don't have much money because I haven't had many jobs but, as I'm still in high school it isn't that much of a problem because my parents pay for everything I want or need.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(FEMMAnist):

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yes, you did say that. actually.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

America was founded on the principle of one person, one vote. Don't fuck that up you ignorant bitches.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Are you even remotely aware of the number of unemployed people in America today? The vast majority of these people are not unemployed because they just think life would be easier and they would have more money if they just lived off of welfare. They're unemployed because--thanks to our former government--companies are being forced to lay off many of their workers because of the economy. People who once had well-paying jobs are now unemployed simply because there aren't enough jobs to go around. Everyone, unemployed or not, should be given the opportunity to fight for what they believe will be a better future.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Fuck those with physical disabilities. Fuck the recently fired due to mandatory lay offs. Fuck housewives. Fuck college students who don't have time for a job. Your logic is so win.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm AP at American government and you are totally correct. Now with an unstable economy this statement is a little off base, but people who are criminals, unintelligent because the choose to be (free education system, remember?), and "thugs" we waste tax dollars on shouldn't vote.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Being in AP US government doesn't mean anything. I took AP US Government Sophomore year and I'm telling you your argument is complete bullshit. However it should be noted that the main reason why election day is not a national holiday is so that poor people have more trouble taking off time to go vote. I think this is unfair and needs to be changed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, should major criminals be able to vote? thugs that have many illegitimate children, buy drugs, and don't work?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't think you should be able to vote in jail. When you are in jail you are denied rights because a fair trail has proved you to be guilty of a crime against society. All citizens 18 years old or older should be allowed to vote regardless of how many illegitimate children they have.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If that ever happens, I'm moving to Canada because America and all its ideals will be dead.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

racist old people?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Wait a second. You told me earlier you don't think women should work and they should stay at home and take care of children. Now you are saying that only employed people should be allowed to vote. That means that you don't think women should vote. That is ridiculously sexist.

by Anonymous 13 years ago