Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the democratic candidate for the U.S. senate seat for the state of South Carolina:

Alvin Greene.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HER2pGdAak

This gentleman has clearly shown that he lacks the appropriate judgment needed to successfully manage his OWN life, let alone those of others. And yet, he received SIXTY PERCENT of the democratic vote in his state.

IMO, it is again time to evaluate voting standards. At a minimum, I would like to see the following qualification enhancements:

1. Verification of identity and U.S. citizenship at the voting site.
2. Education requirement of at least a H.S. diploma or equivalent.
3. Successful completion of a civics test, in English, prior to being issued a voter card.
4. Denial of voting privileges to those on public assistance.

If we aren't careful, the next Presidential candidate could very well be Lad(die)y GaGa...

It doesn't surprise me at all. Democrats, liberals have consistently been angry ignorant voters. That is a perfect candidate for them. They problem is they think they are so much smarter than us, and they show over and over, that they cannot be trusted to run this country in a morally sound, intelligent, fiscally sound, manner.

IMO, it is again time to evaluate voting standards. At a minimum, I would like to see the following qualification enhancements:

1. Verification of identity and U.S. citizenship at the voting site.
2. Education requirement of at least a H.S. diploma or equivalent.
3. Successful completion of a civics test, in English, prior to being issued a voter card.
4. Denial of voting privileges to those on public assistance.



So you believe someone who's a hard worker and laid off from their job (which has happened to thousands in this recession) who received unemployment benefits should be revoked their right to vote? :confused5:

So you believe someone who's a hard worker and laid off from their job (which has happened to thousands in this recession) who received unemployment benefits should be revoked their right to vote? :confused5:

I find it very hard to believe that anyone thinks that. I do think that these scumbags who's whole family has been on welfare and food stamps for generation after generation , never paid taxes, or social security, or anything else should not be able to vote. Two totally seperate issues. You deserve unemployment you dont deserve social services if you can work.

John-

I agree that the guy has serious problems.

However, I strongly disagree with 2-4 of your platform, and there are implementation issues with #1.

The Constitution specifies that all citizens get to vote, period. Changing that is a bad idea. It would establish people (largely poor people) who are subject to the laws of the nation, but with no voice in how it is run.

That's a bad idea in my book.

-Citicop.

I find it very hard to believe that anyone thinks that. I do think that these scumbags who's whole family has been on welfare and food stamps for generation after generation , never paid taxes, or social security, or anything else should not be able to vote. Two totally seperate issues. You deserve unemployment you dont deserve social services if you can work.

And I would agree 100%, but unemployment IS public-funded assistance. Not all public-funded assistance is a burden on hardworking Americans or promotes lazy, irresponsible lifestyles.

In all honesty, if I had to decide between him and Pelosi if they were running for the same seat, I'd pick this guy. At least he has no idea how he would vote so he wouldn't intentionally screw things up.

I'm not sure what's more pathetic: Alvin Greene's responses or O'Donnell's comment about Greene being a better candidate than DeMint.

And I would agree 100%, but unemployment IS public-funded assistance. Not all public-funded assistance is a burden on hardworking Americans or promotes lazy, irresponsible lifestyles.

And every time someone mentions public assistance someone says what about unemployment. Unemployment INSURANCE is payed by your employer in case something happens and jobs are lost. I don't believe it is tax payer funded in all instances. If you work for a private employer, they pay unemployment insurance for you from their profits, it never touches the public.

My neighbor has been on unemployment for about 2 1/2 years. She's making a pretty good racket off it. She worked for about 3 weeks, didn't like the job stress and quit. As far as I'm concerned, unemployment compesnation should be a loan, not government assistance. You should either pay in advance, or pay it back afterward.

Labor unions are great for sucking unemployment dry. Your average steelworkers union or laborers union employee just collects state compensation when there isn't any work. It's a regular thing for them.

My neighbor has been on unemployment for about 2 1/2 years. She's making a pretty good racket off it. She worked for about 3 weeks, didn't like the job stress and quit. As far as I'm concerned, unemployment compesnation should be a loan, not government assistance. You should either pay in advance, or pay it back afterward.

Labor unions are great for sucking unemployment dry. Your average steelworkers union or laborers union employee just collects state compensation when there isn't any work. It's a regular thing for them.

Well you cannot get unemployment here if you quit your job. You have to be layed off or lose your job due to something other than your actions, and you cannot be on it for 2 1/2 years.

IMO, it is again time to evaluate voting standards. At a minimum, I would like to see the following qualification enhancements:

1. Verification of identity and U.S. citizenship at the voting site.
2. Education requirement of at least a H.S. diploma or equivalent.
3. Successful completion of a civics test, in English, prior to being issued a voter card.
4. Denial of voting privileges to those on public assistance.

If we aren't careful, the next Presidential candidate could very well be Lad(die)y GaGa...

GI Joe, I share your sentiment and have for a very long time, believe me. In fact in my fantasy world, I kid there should be a test for both voting and having children. But in reality, I don't really believe either...because it stomps on too many legitimate rights in the process. Therefore, I don't agree with 2, 3, or 4.

Let me start with #3: I know lots AND lots of "educated" people that would fail a civics test. I mean lots. I've also found a shocking number of Americans who can't even find the three countries of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran on a map. Forget the next trouble spot of Yemen. And besides, a lot about "civics" is open to too much interpretation. Look at how many people think the Constitution is outdated.

#2. I don't judge people's level of intelligence by their degrees. I have seen many young enlisted folks (and yes they have your minimum HS degree) in the military who have more knowledge of history than 100% of the advanced degree people I work around in the business world.

#4. I agree with Outshined who makes the distinction that it is companies that pay for unemployment (although I'm not sure it's 100%), but I think there are plenty of examples of good people who've had to use public assistance, and it's too sweeping a category.

My neighbor has been on unemployment for about 2 1/2 years. She's making a pretty good racket off it. She worked for about 3 weeks, didn't like the job stress and quit. As far as I'm concerned, unemployment compesnation should be a loan, not government assistance. You should either pay in advance, or pay it back afterward.

Labor unions are great for sucking unemployment dry. Your average steelworkers union or laborers union employee just collects state compensation when there isn't any work. It's a regular thing for them.


Well you cannot get unemployment here if you quit your job. You have to be layed off or lose your job due to something other than your actions, and you cannot be on it for 2 1/2 years.

I have no doubt there are people abusing unemployment, Piggy. However the rules in Virginia are the same as Outshined's state.

Well you cannot get unemployment here if you quit your job. You have to be layed off or lose your job due to something other than your actions, and you cannot be on it for 2 1/2 years.

Same here, you can't quit and draw it. And as liberal as Oregon is, they don't pay unemployment for 2 1/2 years, I know that. There are always some people living on the dole, but right now a lot of people are legitimately unemployed.

The South had ways of keeping poor people from voting when I was a kid. I don't want to go back to that.

Something isn't quite right about Alvin Greene. I don't think the guy could put a sentence together on his own. He obviously remembered a few lines some one has drilled into him. Oh well, as if any Democrat had a chance against DeMint.

Unemployment may be run by the government, but it is paid for by the employer.

It would establish people (largely poor people) who are subject to the laws of the nation, but with no voice in how it is run.

Clearly there are issues that would need to be resolved, as there are often exceptions that must be accounted for, however, our current system, I believe, is untenable, and a detriment to our society and nation as a whole.

I believe it is reasonable to demand a minimum level of intelligence and integrity from citizens prior to being authorized to exercise certain privileges that effect the security and quality of life of other citizens. Privileges such as driving, firearm ownership, hunting licenses, and a myriad of other tasks, all require the individual displays a minimum level of intelligence and proficiency. This same approach should be required prior to obtaining a voter registration card.

Poverty can not be used as an excuse for poor character, or a failure to gain a basic education. The advent of compulsory education, and the elimination of segregated education, has been in place long enough now, that no citizen can claim the lack of opportunity to receive a basic education. Our nation has produced countless individuals that have improved their economic station in life by taking advantage of the public school system, and pursuing scholarships for higher education, or by successfully using good work ethics to pursue success in the labor force. While poverty is indeed an obstacle, it can NOT defeat good character and determination.

Currently, there are individuals empowered with deciding leadership within our society that have failed to display the ability to consistently make sound decisions governing their OWN lives, let alone the lives of others. Our system also allows foreign nationals to influence our form of government.

I don't claim to have the right answers, because it is indeed a complex issue, however, I feel that it is indeed time to examine the issue in an objective manner, and make changes that will benefit the nation as a whole.

I don't claim to have the right answers, because it is indeed a complex issue, however, I feel that it is indeed time to examine the issue in an objective manner, and make changes that will benefit the nation as a whole.

Your frustration is certainly well-founded. I've spent time thinking about this myself and have yet to come up with a good answer. There is one thing. When I was much younger, I used to really back the concept of "help encourage as many Americans as possible to get out and vote, regardless of their politics." Now in my cynical older age, it doesn't bother me that so many Americans don't vote. I figure if they think it's too big an effort to get their butts to a polling station, than they probably thought it was an even bigger effort to get themselves informed on the issues. I especially took on that cynical view after watching the first elections in Iraq in Jan 2005, when people - in huge numbers- risked being killed or beheaded to exercise their right to vote.

I think that's a dangerous place to go. Who ever is in power might change who can vote to benefit them. Who's elected affects everyone, even the people I disagree with.

In reality, the people you're the most concerned about, don't vote anyway. It's too much trouble for them to bother with.

I still disagree with you.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege, so there is a test for that. But firearm ownership is not a privilege, it is a right, guaranteed by the constitution. If you are not a felon and have no history of mental illness, you may own a firearm. There is no test or education requirement.

The right to vote in this country is one of the most basic freedoms we have. Would you be for limiting someone's freedom of speech because they did not graduate high school or were on public assistance? What about just getting rid of the fourth and fifth amendments for those who don't meet the arbitrary standard you set?

Not to mention, there is no education or income standard for holding federal office in this country. To be President, you must be 35 years old and a natural born citizen of this country. How can you give a minimum education and income standard to voters?

Voting is a *right* in this country. I agree that education and civics knowledge is at a sad state in this country, but I would oppose such a measure (were it ever seriously proposed) with every means at my disposal.

-Citicop.

In reality, the people you're the most concerned about, don't vote anyway. It's too much trouble for them to bother with.

I should've added this sentence to my last post.....

I especially took on that cynical view after watching the first elections in Iraq in Jan 2005, when people - in huge numbers- risked being killed or beheaded to exercise their right to vote.

I grew up seeing Black people "discouraged" from voting. There used to be a literacy test, plus a poll tax that people had to pay in order to vote. A lot of poor people (particularly Black) couldn't afford it. And they were harassed enough that all that together, few voted. It took a lot of gutsy White people who did voter registration drives in the South (and some died doing it) to get them the vote.

Most of you are either too young or didn't live there when that was going on. It's simply not right to do that again. And as I said, most neer do wells don't vote anyway.

I grew up seeing Black people "discouraged" from voting. There used to be a literacy test, plus a poll tax that people had to pay in order to vote. A lot of poor people (particularly Black) couldn't afford it. And they were harassed enough that all that together, few voted. It took a lot of gutsy White people who did voter registration drives in the South (and some died doing it) to get them the vote.



That's an excellent point, RDS. I certainly wouldn't stand for it going back to that in this country. It was the proudest day of all my days in Iraq..... helping in the effort to keep them safe on election day. In fact of all the pictures I took, I'm mad at myself for failing to take a picture of some of them with purple fingers. I was too busy that day to take pictures, yet it's a picture I want on my wall more than any of the others.

This debate got me curious about unemployment benefits and I googled some info on it. It looks like employers can pay either a base tax rate or they can reimburse the system for the exact amount paid out to the employees. I guess that would mean there are instances where the employer is not covering 100% and in others where they may be paying more than 100%. Either way, very little, if any comes out of govt coffers.

This debate got me curious about unemployment benefits and I googled some info on it. It looks like employers can pay either a base tax rate or they can reimburse the system for the exact amount paid out to the employees. I guess that would mean there are instances where the employer is not covering 100% and in others where they may be paying more than 100%. Either way, very little, if any comes out of govt coffers.

That's what I said but nobody listens to me.

That's what I said but nobody listens to me.

Normie, I ALWAYS listen to ya bud. In fact there've been a few AAC questions over the past two weeks I was thinking you and I would love to jump in on. Even the one about contacts vs. glasses since I still can't bring myself to do Lasik. Also been meaning to tell ya I felt badly about not including you in my question about buying a gun....and felt bad sticking it in AAC. Don't worry, I won't do it again. :)

I wouldn't mind seeing voting restricted to veterans, as they were in Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers." (BTW, the book was nothing like the movie, and was about a million times better.) Of course, at the same time you would have to make military service uniformly difficult, make it extremely hard to enlist, and overwhelmingly easy to quit.

As Heinlein wrote, at the very least, veterans have already shown they are willing to put the good of society about their own personal interests.