How many open carrys??

[Guest eyebedam]

Should illegal immigrants have voting rights in this country?

UMMM NO. They should be immediatly deported once they are caught.

Also I believe if you are caught coming across you should be shot in the act.

If you go through the legal process the come here I will welcome you with open arms but the illegal situation is a big part of what is wrong with this country.

I dont care if there sick or pregnant. If you go to the hospital for our free health care & its found out you are not legal. NO Healthcare put your illegal ass on a boat-plane -train or bus but you get a 1 way ticket to the border & dropped off. If you try to recross then fire away.

[Smith]

UMMM NO. They should be immediatly deported once they are caught.

Also I believe if you are caught coming across you should be shot in the act.

If you go through the legal process the come here I will welcome you with open arms but the illegal situation is a big part of what is wrong with this country.

I dont care if there sick or pregnant. If you go to the hospital for our free health care & its found out you are not legal. NO Healthcare put your illegal ass on a boat-plane -train or bus but you get a 1 way ticket to the border & dropped off. If you try to recross then fire away.

Point is, who should vote and what does citizenship guarantee and require. If it requires nothing other than being born here, then it would have to apply to illegals as well. If there is more to citizenship than "being" than my question is - what is it? If investment (taxes) are not a determination of that than what is? My question was pointed to the misguided poster who thinks "investment" in this country is not required and if "investment" is not required than what is the line. I hope he can see that that is exactly the liberal/democrat mentality. Government is power and power is population. A very socialist and communist mentality. BTW it has worked so well for our neighbors to the south.

[canadienmike]

Point is, who should vote and what does citizenship guarantee and require. If it requires nothing other than being born here, then it would have to apply to illegals as well. If there is more to citizenship than "being" than my question is - what is it? If investment (taxes) are not a determination of that than what is? My question was pointed to the misguided poster who thinks "investment" in this country is not required and if "investment" is not required than what is the line. I hope he can see that that is exactly the liberal/democrat mentality. Government is power and power is population. A very socialist and communist mentality. BTW it has worked so well for our neighbors to the south.

????? I don't think I'm following your logic here. Why would you have to open up voting to illegals if citizenship requires being born here (which it does)? By definition, if you are illegal, then obviously you were not born here and not a citizen? Plus, define "investment". Is it simply paying taxes? If so, which taxes, as most people who have bought anything have paid sales tax so they would qualify. Is it income tax? If so, how much would be needed? I'm not a citizen but I pay income tax and own a home so should I be allowed to vote? Where do you draw the line?

And btw, I came here the legal way putting up with all the immigration that the gov't puts you through. At one point I though about just changing my name to Miguel since that would make it easier

[Guest eyebedam]

Point is, who should vote and what does citizenship guarantee and require. If it requires nothing other than being born here, then it would have to apply to illegals as well. If there is more to citizenship than "being" than my question is - what is it? If investment (taxes) are not a determination of that than what is? My question was pointed to the misguided poster who thinks "investment" in this country is not required and if "investment" is not required than what is the line. I hope he can see that that is exactly the liberal/democrat mentality. Government is power and power is population. A very socialist and communist mentality. BTW it has worked so well for our neighbors to the south.

If you are born here then you are legal. I think it should only apply if the birth parent is legal as well but good luck with that.

I think to be able to vote you should either be a property owner / served in the armed forces to some capacity / not be on the public dole. If your not working & on welfare then your not voting. I'm sure my thoughts may ruffle some feathers but it is what it is.

[Smith]

????? I don't think I'm following your logic here. Why would you have to open up voting to illegals if citizenship requires being born here (which it does)? By definition, if you are illegal, then obviously you were not born here and not a citizen? Plus, define "investment". Is it simply paying taxes? If so, which taxes, as most people who have bought anything have paid sales tax so they would qualify. Is it income tax? If so, how much would be needed? I'm not a citizen but I pay income tax and own a home so should I be allowed to vote? Where do you draw the line?

And btw, I came here the legal way putting up with all the immigration that the gov't puts you through. At one point I though about just changing my name to Miguel since that would make it easier

You are following it exactly. Those are the questions that have to be answered. The original, simple statement was our forefathers thought being a landowning, taxpaying individual meant a vote because they had an incentive for the good our the country as a whole. I think the principal is solid. Those who have no input (investment- ie taxes, business, ownership, ect.) have little incentive to make sure government is checked, balanced and answerable to the people for the good of the nation. Those who only take, will only vote to take more.

[Smith]

If you are born here then you are legal. I think it should only apply if the birth parent is legal as well but good luck with that.

I think to be able to vote you should either be a property owner / served in the armed forces to some capacity / not be on the public dole. If your not working & on welfare then your not voting. I'm sure my thoughts may ruffle some feathers but it is what it is.

That's what I'm saying! Now what was this thread about?

[canadienmike]

That's what I'm saying! Now what was this thread about?

I think the thread was about openly carrying illegals to the voting booths...or something like that

[Guest c.a.s.]

The reason voting was changed was so that ANY form of bias at the polls would not occur.

The rich would not rule.

The strong could not control the weak be force of money.

That's why there are also no intelligence tests or special taxes, such as in the Jim Crow era. It's a form of classism, which is looked down upon.

Under the terms, it becomes a business FASCIST state, being solely controlled by the rich and powerful. Under the terms, the rich have every capability of following their own agendas through political pawns, and squelshing the rights of those who aren't rich enough.

And I'm one of those people.

Household Yearly Income: LESS THAN $18K, as per ACT profile questioning standards.

[Guest eyebedam]

The reason voting was changed was so that ANY form of bias at the polls would not occur.

The rich would not rule.

The strong could not control the weak be force of money.

That's why there are also no intelligence tests or special taxes, such as in the Jim Crow era. It's a form of classism, which is looked down upon.

Under the terms, it becomes a business FASCIST state, being solely controlled by the rich and powerful. Under the terms, the rich have every capability of following their own agendas through political pawns, and squelshing the rights of those who aren't rich enough.

And I'm one of those people.

Household Yearly Income: LESS THAN $18K, as per ACT profile questioning standards.

Maybe so but now the illegals & the ones that want something for nothing have put someone in power that will ruin the middle class American. Once they have everyone on the dole they can have total control.

[Smith]

The reason voting was changed was so that ANY form of bias at the polls would not occur.

The rich would not rule.

The strong could not control the weak be force of money.

That's why there are also no intelligence tests or special taxes, such as in the Jim Crow era. It's a form of classism, which is looked down upon.

Under the terms, it becomes a business FASCIST state, being solely controlled by the rich and powerful. Under the terms, the rich have every capability of following their own agendas through political pawns, and squelshing the rights of those who aren't rich enough.

And I'm one of those people.

Household Yearly Income: LESS THAN $18K, as per ACT profile questioning standards.

Yeah our early history is really full of corruption and mediocrity compared to now. I prefer what took us up as opposed to what is taking us down. No wonder America didn't become great till FDR. Seriously IWB, OWB, and Maxpedition off body.

[eapking]

That's the liberals tactic, limiting freedoms because of brains, or lack thereof. They think we're all drooling rednecks, and our opinions are based on a lack of education and/or enlightenment, which they alone possess.

[Guest db99wj]

I open carried today for a little while. I even went into a liquor store, the owner and myself were both open carrying. Fun day.

[Guest justme]

Should illegal immigrants have voting rights in this country?

Absolutely, unequivocally NO..

They can feel free to leave my country because

They pay no taxes.

They burden healthcare and educational systems.

They drive in this state without insurance.

The fact that they are IN this country means they are committing a crime.

The illegal immigrants are an affront to those who played by the rules and came here legally and paid their dues...

why should they also be given the ability to vote?

They should all be immediately rounded up and deported--every last one of them.

[Guest justme]

They liked it so much and it was so universally accepted that it lead to an incredibly devastating civil war, but never mind facts.

Lincoln himself said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others in bondage, I would also do that …" Slavery was not an issue in the war until Lincoln signed the Emancipation proclamation that took effect in Jan. 1863, but its effect only took hold in the REBELLION states...meaning the slaves in the Union north were in fact left in bondage...there is the "great Emancipator" that is hailed as a champion of civil rights in this country.

The original issue that started the Civil war was not slavery, it was primarily fought over the rights of the states to govern themselves without interference from the federal government and to be free from unfair taxation--the exact SAME issues which originally caused this country to declare its' independence from the British Crown on 4 July 1776.

As for slavery being "universally accepted" in this country--it was. It was the accepted way of life in the south and in many places in the north. HOWEVER, many groups would have us believe that every southern person owned slaves--and that simply was not true. The possession of slaves was a status symbol in the south. A good field slave would cost up to $1000 which in 1861 was a LOT of money. Not every person in the south owned slaves, and those who did--the slave was a symbol of wealth, and status, and in fact, according to http://www.uwec.edu/Geography/Ivogeler/w188/south/charles/charles3.htm a number of free blacks actually owned slaves themselves, with a number of "free blacks" actually owning plantations as well as slaves...but you never hear this part of the history of the south...Slavery did not start the civil war, and it was not fought over it.

Edited April 18, 2009 by justme

[Guest justme]

double post..sorry

[S&WForty]

As for slavery being "universally accepted" in this country--it was. It was the accepted way of life in the south and in many places in the north. HOWEVER, many groups would have us believe that every southern person owned slaves--and that simply was not true. The possession of slaves was a status symbol in the south. A good field slave would cost up to $1000 which in 1861 was a LOT of money. Not every person in the south owned slaves, and those who did--the slave was a symbol of wealth, and status, and in fact, according to UWEC Geog188 Vogeler - Free Black Slaveowners in South Carolina a number of free blacks actually owned slaves themselves, with a number of "free blacks" actually owning plantations as well as slaves...but you never hear this part of the history of the south...Slavery did not start the civil war, and it was not fought over it.

It's sad how only the politically correct parts of history are told and taught over and over. Nevermind ALL the facts...

[Guest justme]

It's sad how only the politically correct parts of history are told and taught over and over. Nevermind ALL the facts...

that is because only the politically correct parts of history are deemed "socially acceptable"...while ALL of the facts paint a very different picture of history...

of course it goes back to "if you repeat a lie over and over again, eventually the people will come to believe it"...it is the same way with gun control--repeat the lie enough times....