Comments on: Federal Court Orders Missouri Welfare Offices to Do Better Job on Voter Registration

By: DonLake@sbcglo bal.net

DonLake@sbcglo bal.net — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:37:32 +0000

Why stop at tax fund takers [like defense contractors and felony congress members], those with large ‘carbon’ footprints, over seas vacations, foreign pen pals, lack of facial hair, auto mobiles with poor MPG should be politically ‘excommunicated’! Buy an SUV, lose your vote!

And the ‘attack’ of disabled [see Donna Spring obit] poor young and elderly residents? These folks are already pretty beat up. Fatigue ALWAYS trumps anger, eventually!

By: Coming back to the LP

Coming back to the LP — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:30:42 +0000

It makes sense that people who are net tax takers should not be allowed to vote.

It also follows that legislators at all levels of government should not be paid for serving in the legislature. Legislators should work without pay, or for a nominal amount as in New Hampshire.

By: Glaivester

Glaivester — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:14:28 +0000

I think that what David Macko is saying is that he resents the idea that someone has the right to vote to force someone else to give them money.

It encourages the government to take someone’s money and give it to someone else in order to buy votes.

The fear is that if the government can get more than half of the voters on welfare, then it can use the majority to plunder the minority.

By: DonLake@sbcglo bal.net

DonLake@sbcglo bal.net — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:26:02 +0000

Not only that, Ms Woodruff, lets have blacks count as three fifths of a person! And women voters? [Don't get me started!]

And we can all go back to horses and blood leaches and slavery and sailing ships and

THE ELECTORIAL COLLEGE FOREVER!

By: Barbara Woodruff

Barbara Woodruff — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:14:16 +0000

Our founding fathers thought only property owners should have the vote. Interesting idea and in a sense have we not evolved into a similar situation except only the wealthy seem to be able to get elected.

I’m a bit perplexed by your view of this David and don’t understand your justification for this belief. In the category of inmates running the asylum, one need only look at the legislative executive branch of our government.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:26:38 +0000

It’s hard to know the moral justification of excluding an adult citizen from voting, since all adult residents are expected to obey the laws. If someone is subject to the laws, but had not even an indirect voice in making those laws, what is the moral authority for forcing that person to obey those laws?

By: David Macko

David Macko — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:20:06 +0000

This is definitely in the “Inmates Running the Asylum” category.
In a semi-rational society, since a rational one would not have a government welfare system, welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote.