Gun rights vs. Voting rights

[hjmoosejaw]

http://youtu.be/iWW5DkCFks0

This pisses me off! They're all bitching, five million people will lose their RIGHT to vote. Nobody is taking away their right to vote. They're just being requested to show who they are. Black people and poor people won't be able to vote because they don't have a driver's license .......What, Is there something preventing the blacks and poor from getting a driver's license ? College students can't use their school ID to vote, Boo Hoo, isn't that weird, I couldn't use my fishing license or my library card to buy my Sig either! Compare apples to apples. Nobody is taking away your right to vote. IDIOTS!

[NOLA556]

agreed. i don't even look at it from a racial point of view. IMO, of all the things that a valid picture I.D. is necessary for, voting for our representatives in washington and our local representatives is way up there on the top of the list.

they can easily solve the "you're hurting the poor and the blacks" problem by making state I.D. cards free. (i know they're not expensive but you gotta realize your dealing with ideologues here, they don't care if it only costs 10 cents, they'll still make up a reason why the poor can't cough up a dime)

make a state I.D. card (not a driver's license) free and you undermine their entire argument. I suppose their next argument would be that the poor can't afford transportation to get to the DMV.... lol. yea the can afford transportation TO GO VOTE, but they can't afford transportation to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

either way, the whole argument is bullshit and is fatally flawed. it's not very difficult to blow massive holes in their story.

[hjmoosejaw]

What's sad is that there will be a bunch of people sympathizing with them without taking a minute to think about it. They'll be like "Oh that's a shame " or "we can't have that" or "that isn't fair", whatever. They just can't take the time to think.

[hjmoosejaw]

The ability to name the Vice President or keep up on some current topics wouldn't hurt either. If you don't care enough about what is going on around you, you probably shouldn't be helping to make a decision that affects the rest of us by voting for something or someone that you know zero about.

[NOLA556]

What would be the difference between the Feds having a single law that requires all States to follow the same requirements for a State ID, vs. establishing a national ID card?  Not much that I can think of.

the difference is the fact that each state would be in charge of it's own processes, and those processes would need to meet federal guidelines. in other words, it would be a national ID system only without the centralized authority that could potentially facilitate fraud rather than prevent it. it goes right back to the core principal of state's rights. when there's 50 separate sovereign entities, no one entity can fuck over EVERYONE, but when that authority is consolidated, that one centralized authority can conceivably do whatever it wants and who's gonna tell it not to?

So the heart of the issue is still the same, should EVERYONE be allowed to vote, if no, then WHO should be excluded and why?  Most would agree that non-U.S. citizens (here legally or not) should be excluded. agreed.  Most would agree that those incarcerated for crimes should not vote. currently incarcerated? sure, I'll agree that those who are currently incarcerated have no right to vote, they're still paying their debt. but FYI, convicted felons are banned from voting and/or owning a firearm for LIFE. this is WRONG WRONG WRONG in my honest opinion. what's the point of "paying your debt to society" if your debt is never 100% paid? you commit a crime, you do your time, and after your time is done, your debt should be considered PAID, and ALL rights should be restored.  Most would agree that one should be at least 18. agreed.  But the question becomes grey very quickly after that.  Should people who pay no income/property tax be allowed to vote? I agree that this is indeed a gray area, but there are reasons. for example, many would argue for the repeal of the 16th Amendment. myself being one of them. the original CONUS forbade direct taxation of income, and that principal was reversed by the 16thA, which basically gave the fed gov the ability to directly tax however they want, whatever they want, for whatever reason they want. on top of that, direct taxation is here, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. the government has provisions for people with lower income. they pay taxes out of every check, but they end up getting it all back when they file their taxes. whether you agree or disagree with this practice, these people's voting rights should have nothing to do with their tax status. here's another quick example. let's say that I'm in a certain tax bracket. I'm not rich, but I'm also not poor enough to qualify for "zero" tax status. ok, so the government decides to pass a bill that would bump me into the lower tax bracket and exempt me from paying taxes... does that mean that, with the stroke of a pen, my voting rights vanish at the same time?  Should people who are mentally incompetent or are mentally "disabled"? taken for face value, I agree that people who are deemed mentally disabled should NOT be allowed to vote, but even this is a slippery slope, because who decides what is mentally disabled? who gets to arbitrarily decide where the line is between stable and unstable? what if "libertarianism" is officially deemed a "mental deficiency"?  How about those who have no basic knowledge of what they are voting for/against? i see the point here, but what, should there be a written test on political trivia? if so, who get's to come up with the questions? who decides what issues are "important" and which ones aren't?  Should you be able to vote if you are dependent upon welfare? "welfare" is a very broad term. even still, why should the acceptance of government funds effect voting rights?  Should you be able to vote if you are a drug addict? define "drug". do you mean "drugs" with a yearly national death toll of ZERO like marijuana, or do you mean "drugs" with a yearly national death toll of 100,000 not even counting overdose and misdiagnosis? http://www.alternet.org/health/147318/100,000_americans_die_each_year_from_prescription_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich/  Should you be able to vote if you contribute almost nothing to general society? again, who gets to decide what is a "contribution to society". and further, as an American, NOT A GODDAMN SOCIALIST, what obligation do I have to contribute ANYTHING to the "general society"?  Should a convicted felon be able to vote even after he/she has "served their time", or after a set probationary period? as stated earlier, of course they should be able to vote. what's the point of paying your debt, if the debt is never truly paid?  I don't have all the answers, as these are some tough questions and I can argue both sides in certain instances.

These are the larger issues that need to be addressed across the board, as we are quickly sliding down the slope in our nation's history of voting/legislating ourselves out of basic freedoms and into ruin.

The more freedom we have in society, the greater ability there is for corruption/fraud/crime.  So do we lock ourselves down with more laws/regulations/oversight, or do we tolerate the imperfect nature of the situation while trying to maintain basic freedoms? we deal with the imperfect nature of a free society. this is the founding principal of our country. I.E.... those who sacrifice freedom for security.... etc.

Regards,

Walker

[rah45]

Damned good response, NOLA, and great questions, Walker. For examples of just how things can be twisted in the ways NOLA describes, I'll refer everyone to the Jim Crow laws in the South during and after Reconstruction. Sure, blacks had rights, but the requirements for fulfilling the obligations to those rights were...vague.... If those in government, unchecked by the populace (as is the situation now), desire to twist the laws to exclude certain portions of a law-abiding citizenry from essential functions of a republic, they can and WILL do so. History proves this. So, IMO, better to have more freedom and fight constantly to maintain it, via education and the ballot box, or you'll eventually have to use the cartridge box to defend your freedoms. The latter will eventually happen anyway, but the former will forestall it for a longer period of time, IMO.

[Reaver]

agreed. i don't even look at it from a racial point of view. IMO, of all the things that a valid picture I.D. is necessary for, voting for our representatives in washington and our local representatives is way up there on the top of the list.

they can easily solve the "you're hurting the poor and the blacks" problem by making state I.D. cards free. (i know they're not expensive but you gotta realize your dealing with ideologues here, they don't care if it only costs 10 cents, they'll still make up a reason why the poor can't cough up a dime)

make a state I.D. card (not a driver's license) free and you undermine their entire argument. I suppose their next argument would be that the poor can't afford transportation to get to the DMV.... lol. yea the can afford transportation TO GO VOTE, but they can't afford transportation to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

either way, the whole argument is bullshit and is fatally flawed. it's not very difficult to blow massive holes in their story.

^^^  [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co

[Currahee]

The biggest flaw in their argument is that there is no inherent right to vote.  The founding fathers limited the franchise to male land owners.  Those were the only people who had a say, because those were the only ones who they figured contributed to the system.

Should the franchise be expanded?  IMO yes, but there should still be severe limitations on it. The standard of proving you are an actual citizen with a valid ID is nice, it's a start.  But if you want to turn the country around you need to make a W2 form with proof of paying net income taxes, the idea that a welfare recipient has the same say where government money is spent, the idea pisses me off.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." -Alexander Tytler

[Kentactic]

First to destroy their argument with no factual based evidence id be willing to bet that theres only a few people in the country without ID's that actually votes. If you dont have a Damn Drivers license or atleast some form of State ID your probably not too concerned with voting since you cant even function on your own in society.

Next i agree with Currahee that if you are on welfare you shouldnt be allowed to vote. thats like giving your kids equal voting rights in your house on whats for dinner.... if youve got three kids youll never win and youll all be eating ice cream every single meal. essentially the welfare recipients are deciding what to do with YOUR money with none of their own in the pot. just plain BS....

[NOLA556]

First to destroy their argument with no factual based evidence id be willing to bet that theres only a few people in the country without ID's that actually votes. If you dont have a Damn Drivers license or atleast some form of State ID your probably not too concerned with voting since you cant even function on your own in society.

Next i agree with Currahee that if you are on welfare you shouldnt be allowed to vote. thats like giving your kids equal voting rights in your house on whats for dinner.... if youve got three kids youll never win and youll all be eating ice cream every single meal. essentially the welfare recipients are deciding what to do with YOUR money with none of their own in the pot. just plain BS....

what... the... fuck...

I recieved a little government pocket change after Katrina... does that mean that my voting rights should have been suspended?
(btw, that's literally the ONLY time I've EVER gotten any money from the government)

do you two (ken and currahee) realize that the constitution took care of all this shit over 200 years ago? no you can't just vote for ice cream every night because then you have to decide what's CONSTITUTIONAL. where's the ice cream coming from? who has to provide it? this has NOTHING to do with the voting rights of people who receive government money. I'm honestly a bit blown away that both of you (and millions of other Americans) are so honky-dory with the idea of restricting peoples right to decide who represents them. my mood is very somber as I type this response.

[rah45]

I'm not going to say that I completely disagree with not letting people who aren't paying taxes to vote. You can still receive money from the government and be either working a job (I receive Federal Pell grant for college and have taken out a subsidized loan for $5k, but I still work a full-time job), or actively looking for one. I'm just opposed to people sitting on their butts for the rest of their lives (unless they're retired), not contributing, and still expecting to have a say in politics. The Constitution apparently wasn't that well made regarding this issue, since many of these monkeys are voting and yet negatively impacting the nation.

[Kentactic]

First to destroy their argument with no factual based evidence id be willing to bet that theres only a few people in the country without ID's that actually votes. If you dont have a Damn Drivers license or atleast some form of State ID your probably not too concerned with voting since you cant even function on your own in society.

Next i agree with Currahee that if you are on welfare you shouldnt be allowed to vote. thats like giving your kids equal voting rights in your house on whats for dinner.... if youve got three kids youll never win and youll all be eating ice cream every single meal. essentially the welfare recipients are deciding what to do with YOUR money with none of their own in the pot. just plain BS....

what... the... fuck...

I recieved a little government pocket change after Katrina... does that mean that my voting rights should have been suspended?
(btw, that's literally the ONLY time I've EVER gotten any money from the government)

do you two (ken and currahee) realize that the constitution took care of all this shit over 200 years ago? no you can't just vote for ice cream every night because then you have to decide what's CONSTITUTIONAL. where's the ice cream coming from? who has to provide it? this has NOTHING to do with the voting rights of people who receive government money. I'm honestly a bit blown away that both of you (and millions of other Americans) are so honky-dory with the idea of restricting peoples right to decide who represents them. my mood is very somber as I type this response.

i apaulogize if the thread has moved off course but i feel it was a gradual move not a total jump. and im going to say my final thoughts and await your response and call the thread complete to avoid another long drawn out debate on the topic of welfare. also let me add that im referring to people totally reliant on the government for survival. people with no job, that pay no taxes.

In my opinion it is very screwed for lack of a better word in my vocabulary to let some one who only takes from the system have as much voting power as some one who actually puts something in. essentially voters on welfare turn into a virus. once the tipping point is reached the providers become slaves to the takers.

maybe that tipping point is never reached, maybe in some peoplesd opinion it already has been reached. but why should some one who dosent put anything into the system and even goes a step further to TAKE from the system have any right to decide what is done with it. when the government tells me what i must give them atleast they claim to be giving me something for my money. welfare recipients flat out dont contribute anything what so ever and also take a living wage from the system. and you want those people to be able to vote to give themselves more of my money if they so choose? theres SOOOO many things wrong with the idea that people reliant on the government should have a right to vote. thats my .02 and ill await your reply.   

[Currahee]

I received some money after Katrina too, it was nowhere NEAR what I payed in taxes.  And my point stands, if you receive more money from the government than you pay in you should not be able to vote. 

I went to my first two years of school on pell grants and got earned income tax credit while I was working two part time jobs to make ends meet.  I should not have been allowed to vote those years.  It was totally unfair that I should be able to vote on how money I did not put in was spent.

[hjmoosejaw]

I feel, from reading some of these posts, that it is a sign of the times. Thanks to this dips#@t in office, he is succeeding in making everybody dependent on government and pitting classes against classes, race against race, rich against poor. Not knowing any of your backgrounds, ethnicities or incomes, I'm not talking about any of you. Just society in general. I for one am not a racist and I don't look down on anybody that makes less than I do. I'm all for helping people out. A man has to eat, and sometimes people just fall on hard times ( usually because of stupid policies by the government). BUT, I'm really sick and tired of the entitlement mentality that has overcome America. I have nothing against blacks. I have some black friends. (not many because there aren't many around where I live.) But it bothers me when they think that when they're working along side of me, that they don't have to work as hard. Like they are owed something because their ancestors were slaves. Well your ancestors might have been slaves and I feel bad for what they went through, but you never picked an ounce of cotton so don't feel that I owe you something for what happened to them. All of our ancestors had some hard times. Now get busy! And welfare recipients, I'm all for helping you out. For a little while, until you get on your feet. I can tell you some stories about how broke I've been and what I've gone through but that's neither here or there. You work to claw your way back up and do the best you can. Just don't raise your family on welfare while teaching your kids to do the same. People are feeling the pressure. If it continues to get worse. We will have to start drawing lines in the sand. Some of us are just burnt out on paying. We don't mind paying, but when people and the government keep taking, taking and taking. That starts to get old. Just like in the prepping world. If you and a small community of friends prepare and save and gather and SHTF. You will make decisions for your little community. You will be less apt to worry about the guy that just strolled in and wants to share everything that you and your friends have worked so hard to achieve. Much less care about his vote. Well, that's all I got for now. I'm tired of typing. Happy Easter!   

[hjmoosejaw]

http://click.infospace.com/ClickHandler.ashx?du=http%3a%2f%2farchive.fairvote.org%2f%3fpage%3d205&ru=http%3a%2f%2farchive.fairvote.org%2f%3fpage%3d205&ld=20120409&ap=5&app=1&c=facemoods.v2.6.bwr&s=facemoodsv2&coi=239137&cop=main-title&euip=98.21.108.95&npp=5&p=0&pp=0&pvaid=dbcca1a296894e078c432fb19952b728&ep=5&mid=9&hash=BE1524C0583D30AF7AC50A1807F8EC25

Found this interesting. (the first paragraph)

[NOLA556]

First to destroy their argument with no factual based evidence id be willing to bet that theres only a few people in the country without ID's that actually votes. If you dont have a Damn Drivers license or atleast some form of State ID your probably not too concerned with voting since you cant even function on your own in society.

Next i agree with Currahee that if you are on welfare you shouldnt be allowed to vote. thats like giving your kids equal voting rights in your house on whats for dinner.... if youve got three kids youll never win and youll all be eating ice cream every single meal. essentially the welfare recipients are deciding what to do with YOUR money with none of their own in the pot. just plain BS....

what... the... fuck...

I recieved a little government pocket change after Katrina... does that mean that my voting rights should have been suspended?
(btw, that's literally the ONLY time I've EVER gotten any money from the government)

do you two (ken and currahee) realize that the constitution took care of all this shit over 200 years ago? no you can't just vote for ice cream every night because then you have to decide what's CONSTITUTIONAL. where's the ice cream coming from? who has to provide it? this has NOTHING to do with the voting rights of people who receive government money. I'm honestly a bit blown away that both of you (and millions of other Americans) are so honky-dory with the idea of restricting peoples right to decide who represents them. my mood is very somber as I type this response.

i apaulogize if the thread has moved off course but i feel it was a gradual move not a total jump. and im going to say my final thoughts and await your response and call the thread complete to avoid another long drawn out debate on the topic of welfare. also let me add that im referring to people totally reliant on the government for survival. people with no job, that pay no taxes.

In my opinion it is very screwed for lack of a better word in my vocabulary to let some one who only takes from the system have as much voting power as some one who actually puts something in. essentially voters on welfare turn into a virus. once the tipping point is reached the providers become slaves to the takers.

maybe that tipping point is never reached, maybe in some peoplesd opinion it already has been reached. but why should some one who dosent put anything into the system and even goes a step further to TAKE from the system have any right to decide what is done with it. when the government tells me what i must give them atleast they claim to be giving me something for my money. welfare recipients flat out dont contribute anything what so ever and also take a living wage from the system. and you want those people to be able to vote to give themselves more of my money if they so choose? theres SOOOO many things wrong with the idea that people reliant on the government should have a right to vote. thats my .02 and ill await your reply.

(I was a little heated in my response... i get mouthy.. lol)

don't get me wrong ken, i agree with everything you're saying (a curahee as well). my intent was never to say that you're points are wrong. they're absolutely correct in just about every way. my only point is that when you write things into law, they become a whole different animal. you're slathering butter all over a steep slope. when things are written into law, basically all that is is the general public giving official authority to their representatives to enforce their will. giving politicians and beaurocrats the authority to pick and choose who gets to vote? how in the world is that a good idea?

so hopefully i cleared up what I was saying... I was never disagreeing with you guys about these specific issues. it is a bit irritating that some lazy welfare-dependent sloth has just as much of a say as you or I do, but what's the alternative? IMO the country was founded on the idea of having to put up with some dangers, irritations, and inconveniences in order to have freedom. I don't mean to over-simplify this, but IMO it's a question of where you want the power to reside. with the people, or with the small handful of "rulers"...

[special-k]

I come from an extreme libertarian point of view....so here's something for y'all to ponder....

Some of you propose that people who are a "drain on the system" should not get a vote.  I know where your coming from because I used to think that way, but then I asked myself this: 

Following that same line of reasoning, should the very wealthy get more than one vote?  Y'all might want roll that one around for while.


But anyway, I think this is the appropriate place to re-iterate my 'signature quote':

"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in."  ~  Bill Hicks

[Kentactic]

I come from an extreme libertarian point of view....so here's something for y'all to ponder....

Some of you propose that people who are a "drain on the system" should not get a vote.  I know where your coming from because I used to think that way, but then I asked myself this: 

Following that same line of reasoning, should the very wealthy get more than one vote?  Y'all might want roll that one around for while.


But anyway, I think this is the appropriate place to re-iterate my 'signature quote':

"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in."  ~  Bill Hicks

i hear what your saying...BUT... americans are all on a team..and aslong as you pull your fair share no ones going to say anything. both kobe bryant and the 3rd string benchers all get the same championship rings because they were all pulling for the same team. they all showed up for every practice and put all they had into it. kobe dosent get two rings because he makes more in salary.. but aslong as every team member has his whole heart in it he deserves a ring. if he dosent have all hes got in it then he gets cut... how much you make means nothing..what your saying is tht it is possible to give all youve got into your country and still fail to make a living wage and i find that very hard to beleive in this country we live in. ... if you rely on welfare then you didnt put fourth a good effort and you dont deserve a ring...

[NOLA556]

I come from an extreme libertarian point of view....so here's something for y'all to ponder....

Some of you propose that people who are a "drain on the system" should not get a vote.  I know where your coming from because I used to think that way, but then I asked myself this: 

Following that same line of reasoning, should the very wealthy get more than one vote?  Y'all might want roll that one around for while.


But anyway, I think this is the appropriate place to re-iterate my 'signature quote':

"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in."  ~  Bill Hicks

i hear what your saying...BUT... americans are all on a team..and aslong as you pull your fair share no ones going to say anything. both kobe bryant and the 3rd string benchers all get the same championship rings because they were all pulling for the same team. they all showed up for every practice and put all they had into it. kobe dosent get two rings because he makes more in salary.. but aslong as every team member has his whole heart in it he deserves a ring. if he dosent have all hes got in it then he gets cut... how much you make means nothing..what your saying is tht it is possible to give all youve got into your country and still fail to make a living wage and i find that very hard to beleive in this country we live in. ... if you rely on welfare then you didnt put fourth a good effort and you dont deserve a ring...

Ken, there will ALWAYS be "haves" and "have nots". I'm not trying to sound like these occupy goons, but it's true. we'll NEVER see a society where there are literally NO "have nots". you're advocating the act of taking away the right of the "have nots" to vote on their elected officials.

lots of people are in a bad place in their lives for lots of reasons. one good example is all the decent middle class folks in New Orleans who didn't have adequate insurance on their property prior to Katrina, and after their homes were destroyed, they had nothing to return to, and no reserve funds to live on. what you're telling me right now is that those people are "cut from the team" because they're too "lazy" to contribute. they're living under bridges and on the banks of the Mississippi River in tents, not because they're lazy, but because a hurricane came through town and they didn't have the proper provisions to rebuild their lives. these people SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE.

just think about that for a minute.

[sledge]

Life is not fair, and everyone has their moments of struggle and adversity, some more than others.  After any personal, family, local, regional, or even national struggle, there are those that will persevere utilizing their brains and inner drive.  Then there are those that will give up or choose to define themselves by their struggle.

I could walk out of my house with my family with only the clothing on our backs, lose everything we have in material wealth and monetary savings, and still rebuild to regain a comfortable lifestyle.  Why?  Because of choices we have made to educate ourselves, because of our ongoing application of our fortitude, and most importantly our faith that God will provide opportunity if we look to find it.  (sorry to offend all the atheists here, but that is how it is, and I cannot deny it)

So yes, anyone who goes through a catastrophic turn in life, chooses to not pick themselves up off the floor vs. becoming a refugee in destitution, may lose their right to vote temporarily or permanently depending upon their chosen course of action.  We can't give people inner fortitude or brains, but why should the folks who have none retain power of making choices that may significantly impact those who have?

So after SHTF, when I take in refugees out of charity (even if they are refugees out of no fault of their own), are you telling me they have a "right to vote" in decisions made regarding my family's existence even if they have chosen to do nothing to help improve our shared existence?   Ummm, sorry no.  Here is some food and clothing, now go make a life for yourself over in that direction.  I will help with whatever I am able to, but there are limits.

Freedom comes at a cost not only won on the battlefield, but in our everyday choices and actions.

Regards,

Walker

Well said!

[Kentactic]

I come from an extreme libertarian point of view....so here's something for y'all to ponder....

Some of you propose that people who are a "drain on the system" should not get a vote.  I know where your coming from because I used to think that way, but then I asked myself this: 

Following that same line of reasoning, should the very wealthy get more than one vote?  Y'all might want roll that one around for while.


But anyway, I think this is the appropriate place to re-iterate my 'signature quote':

"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in."  ~  Bill Hicks

i hear what your saying...BUT... americans are all on a team..and aslong as you pull your fair share no ones going to say anything. both kobe bryant and the 3rd string benchers all get the same championship rings because they were all pulling for the same team. they all showed up for every practice and put all they had into it. kobe dosent get two rings because he makes more in salary.. but aslong as every team member has his whole heart in it he deserves a ring. if he dosent have all hes got in it then he gets cut... how much you make means nothing..what your saying is tht it is possible to give all youve got into your country and still fail to make a living wage and i find that very hard to beleive in this country we live in. ... if you rely on welfare then you didnt put fourth a good effort and you dont deserve a ring...

Ken, there will ALWAYS be "haves" and "have nots". I'm not trying to sound like these occupy goons, but it's true. we'll NEVER see a society where there are literally NO "have nots". you're advocating the act of taking away the right of the "have nots" to vote on their elected officials.

lots of people are in a bad place in their lives for lots of reasons. one good example is all the decent middle class folks in New Orleans who didn't have adequate insurance on their property prior to Katrina, and after their homes were destroyed, they had nothing to return to, and no reserve funds to live on. what you're telling me right now is that those people are "cut from the team" because they're too "lazy" to contribute. they're living under bridges and on the banks of the Mississippi River in tents, not because they're lazy, but because a hurricane came through town and they didn't have the proper provisions to rebuild their lives. these people SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE.

just think about that for a minute.

but like walker said... they are have nots because they choose to be... if they want to be a have all they have to do is make different choices. if you are in a katrina event and you lost everything. and had nothing in the bank and even your job was wiped out then youve got a year or so to get back on your feet. if in 1 year you havent started making some sort of an income again and gotten off government handouts then its because youve chose to. this is america the land of oppurtunity...

[NOLA556]

well i don't see much of a reason to continue here. I just can't agree with you guys. you make valid points, especially the one about the refugees post-shtf having a say on my family. I get your point, and it's a good one. i just can't agree with it as it pertains to normal non-shtf voting processes.

[hjmoosejaw]

I have an apartment on my house that I used to rent out. My dad is 90 and currently lives in there. But I used to rent it to a guy that was on disability for a bad back. He was a nice enough guy and all that, but I was moving logs around in my yard before (actually standing them up cause I was building something), and he worked right along side me helping with these 7 and 8 foot logs. Not a complaint. But he didn't have to work and I work 54 miles from home. Starting time was 6 am. then. I remember going outside to clear a foot of snow off my car at 4 am. to go to work and I looked up and his light was on with his stereo playing. He talked down out of his window and was talking about the snow and said he hadn't been to bed yet. He had been up drawing pictures all night. ( He liked to draw). That's fine if he wants that life. There are times when I wish I could stay up listening to my stereo or whatever. But I shouldn't be forced to clean snow off of my car at 4am. so I can pay for my life and his. Like I said , I'm all for helping people out but don't act like I owe it to you. You gotta give something. I could go live in the woods. But f I chose that, I wouldn't expect anybody to pay my way.