Jump to content

Why Is Our Government Putting People In Cages?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Sometimes I read your posts and wonder if you were dropped on your head as a kid. 

 

He makes his point rather inelegantly, with an angular harshness which makes the reader dive head long into disagreement; but it's one of the few opinions he has which I actually agree with.

 

The franchise should not be viewed as a right, but rather a privilege earned.  While there is no moral standing to denying someone the vote because of their color, race, creed, sex, sexuality, or any other immutable characteristic, there is a compelling moral argument to be made for restricting the pool of individuals who have a say in the size and scope of government to those whom have a direct stake in it's expansion.

 

My proposal would be an end to all birthright citizenship, regardless to nation of origin (including the US); and to institute a citizenship test composed of questions about US civics and history, basic economics and household finances.  I would couple that with an absolute demand of being a property or business owner (I'm flexible and would listen to other means testing, including being a net federal tax payer), or military service (reasonable accommodations made for the disabled). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

He makes his point rather inelegantly, with an angular harshness which makes the reader dive head long into disagreement; but it's one of the few opinions he has which I actually agree with.

 

The franchise should not be viewed as a right, but rather a privilege earned.  While there is no moral standing to denying someone the vote because of their color, race, creed, sex, sexuality, or any other immutable characteristic, there is a compelling moral argument to be made for restricting the pool of individuals who have a say in the size and scope of government to those whom have a direct stake in it's expansion.

 

My proposal would be an end to all birthright citizenship, regardless to nation of origin (including the US); and to institute a citizenship test composed of questions about US civics and history, basic economics and household finances.  I would couple that with an absolute demand of being a property or business owner (I'm flexible and would listen to other means testing, including being a net federal tax payer), or military service (reasonable accommodations made for the disabled). 

 

There was a reason it wasn’t in the bill of rights and it ain’t because it slipped their mind. 

 

Also, may I point to the decline of the British Empire after enfranchisement. But I’m sure the people who disagree with me are familiar with that and have studied it. 

10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Me? 

 

Especially you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

He makes his point rather inelegantly, with an angular harshness which makes the reader dive head long into disagreement; but it's one of the few opinions he has which I actually agree with.

 

The franchise should not be viewed as a right, but rather a privilege earned.  While there is no moral standing to denying someone the vote because of their color, race, creed, sex, sexuality, or any other immutable characteristic, there is a compelling moral argument to be made for restricting the pool of individuals who have a say in the size and scope of government to those whom have a direct stake in it's expansion.

 

My proposal would be an end to all birthright citizenship, regardless to nation of origin (including the US); and to institute a citizenship test composed of questions about US civics and history, basic economics and household finances.  I would couple that with an absolute demand of being a property or business owner (I'm flexible and would listen to other means testing, including being a net federal tax payer), or military service (reasonable accommodations made for the disabled). 


It is so difficult to read between the misogyny and racism that I often wonder if there is a point to his posts.

Thank you for taking the time to dissect it. 

Edited by Buffalo_Gal
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


It is so difficult to read between the misogyny and racism that I often wonder if there is a point to his posts.

Thank you for taking the time to dissect it. 

 

Not a problem.

 

He, more often than not, takes backwards and morally questionable positions; but I don't use that as a blanket disqualifier for any and all positions he takes.  Even the dopiest or most socially abhorrent occasionally stumble upon the truth or accidental wisdom.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


It is so difficult to read between the misogyny and racism that I often wonder if there is a point to his posts.

Thank you for taking the time to dissect it. 

 

If you ever asked I’d list reasons. Chivalry, ya know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

She has essentially become the @Coach Tuesday of the DNC. Every month or so she jumps in, says something embarrassingly stupid, and then disappears for two months before anyone can ask a follow up question.


I gotta remember that. Although I did learn there are three different types of plagues today, so sometimes responding to a goofball leads to a learning experience. ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Sometimes I read his posts and wonder if he was dropped on his head enough...

Sometimes I wonder if it's time for The_Dude to get a Planned Parenthood intervention.

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


I gotta remember that. Although I did learn there are three different types of plagues today, so sometimes responding to a goofball leads to a learning experience. ? 

That goofball has Cliff Claven level knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The franchise should not be viewed as a right, but rather a privilege earned.  While there is no moral standing to denying someone the vote because of their color, race, creed, sex, sexuality, or any other immutable characteristic, there is a compelling moral argument to be made for restricting the pool of individuals who have a say in the size and scope of government to those whom have a direct stake in it's expansion.

 

 

My wife always ***** about people who do not own any property having a say regarding how much property taxes people should pay.  Now that I rent (made a decent profit when I sold my house in Oakland last year and sitting on the cash until the housing market comes back to earth here) I say "fleece the *****!!"  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

That goofball has Cliff Claven level knowledge.

 

...I am going to take that as a compliment. Thank you, sir. 

30 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

CA Cop killed by illegal.

 

I suspect leftists see this as a win-win: one escaped illegal and one dead cop.

 

I feel for the cop but it couldn’t have happened in a state that deserves it more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...