Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 77 of 77

Thread: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Are they still affected by the government's decisions?
    Nobody is forcing them to accept welfare.

    You want people to be able to have their cake and eat it, too. That's not how it should work in America.

  2. #72
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Nobody is forcing them to accept welfare.

    You want people to be able to have their cake and eat it, too. That's not how it should work in America.
    You didn't answer my question. Also would you deny someone on disability the right to vote, or someone on social security?
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  3. #73
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Because they're largely incapable of contributing anything since they're, you know, disabled and whatnot. Can't really fault them for failing in their civic duty if they're mentally and physically handicapped.
    So it's not really about intelligence or civic duty at all. It's about "fault." The fact is that you have no reason to believe that the disabled are more intelligent than any other net tax consumer, and they obviously are not performing any civic duty. The only difference is that you feel sorry for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    Once again, it has nothing to do with how much money you make. I know people who make less than $20 K a year that would still be eligible to vote simply because they don't accept government money.
    I find that difficult to believe. Almost no one who earns less than $100K per year is a net taxpayer, and even many people who earn more than that are net tax consumers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    Self-sufficient does not necessarily mean wealthy, which is my contention, i.e., that self-sufficient individuals are typically more intelligent and dutiful than people who are dependent upon the government.
    That correlation is very weak at best. And there are plenty of better ways to distinguish intelligent/dutiful people from everyone else, which you reject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    No, but it is one of the few ways you can contribute to the maintenance and operation of our political system. I'm not excluding net tax-consumers from participating in society, just the political process, which is something they don't contribute to.
    Yes they do. There are ways of contributing other than money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    I would also have an exemption for members of the military, since they're contributing to the political system, but I would put a statute of limitations on how long they were exempt. Being in the military is no excuse for sucking at the government teat for the rest of your life.
    How are they contributing to the political system? Why should they be exempt, but not nurses, teachers, and scientists (or for that matter, anyone with a job)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    The government implements all of these policies by spending money. Without money there is no policy, no government.
    That does not change the fact that those policies affect the poor disproportionately. When the government debates whether or not to go to war, for example, the question of who is going to pay for it is only a peripheral issue to the main question of whether or not it's actually a good idea. You don't have to be wealthy to have an opinion on that.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Another problem here is how you calculate it. Is it done by the month of the election, the year, the term?
    I'd let the States and local governments figure out what works best for them.

    Why should they be treated any differently?
    Because they cannot be blamed for their dependence upon society.

    Let me rephrase. The majority of net tax payers voted in politicians that would either vote these programs in or continue to keep these programs running.
    So, these programs would exist even if we excluded net tax-consumers from voting?

    Good point.

    And what are you basing this on, that net tax-producers are just as intelligent? I mean the rich include people like Paris Hilton who inherited their money, and people like Michael Vick who made their money based on their physical attributes not their mental acuity. You also have people who might be students or might be disabled or retired who take in more money but take the time to research the issues.
    I'm basing it upon the fact that net tax-consumers are mostly unemployed and dependent upon the government, as opposed to people who are employed and self-sufficient; the latter group sustains the political system (no to mention the welfare programs) with their tax dollars; they have a right to dictate its composition.

    How am I doing the same thing by saying the franchise should be given to all non-felon adults over the age of 18.
    Because permitting a dependent class of citizens to vote themselves into the Treasury supports your agenda. Truly despicable.

    I'm not trying to limit anyone from voting, I'm trying to make sure everyone has a say in THEIR country.
    Except felons...why is that? Is it because they've incurred some kind of debt to society? Why! You cruel bastard!


  5. #75
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Are they still affected by the government's decisions?
    Yes they are, but if they don't contribute, they shouldn't be able to vote to benefit themselves at my expense… again, no representation without taxation.

  6. #76
    Banned Coolguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    01-26-10 @ 03:40 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    846

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    Yes they are, but if they don't contribute, they shouldn't be able to vote to benefit themselves at my expense… again, no representation without taxation.
    So, disabled Veterans shouldn't get to vote?

  7. #77
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

    Because they cannot be blamed for their dependence upon society.
    So, these programs would exist even if we excluded net tax-consumers from voting?

    Good point.
    And also that, at least at the time when these programs were enacted, net-tax-producers supported them, thinking they were better for society.

    I'm basing it upon the fact that net tax-consumers are mostly unemployed and dependent upon the government, as opposed to people who are employed and self-sufficient; the latter group sustains the political system (no to mention the welfare programs) with their tax dollars; they have a right to dictate its composition.
    Firstly, not all people on welfare are unemployed. My father worked for years running his own lawn care business, and was successful enough to be at least decently well off. When the economy slumped around a decade ago, my father learned the hard way that when your budget gets tight the guy who mows your lawn is an acceptable budget cut. We went on food stamps and I'm not sure what other government aid while he worked the accounts he did have and tried to find a better situation. Eventually he was able to fold his business into another landscaper's and things picked up, but if it wasn't for government aid, things would have been much worse.

    The point of this is to illustrate that not everyone who uses social programs is some sort of leech like you make it out to be, many people do use them when they need help after hard times. You really have to consider that.


    Because permitting a dependent class of citizens to vote themselves into the Treasury supports your agenda. Truly despicable.
    Please give me your evidence that what you stated above is my reason for wanting a fully extended franchise.



    Except felons...why is that? Is it because they've incurred some kind of debt to society? Why! You cruel bastard!

    No, because a court of law took away their rights. Only a court of law should be able to take away a natural right like having a say in your governance.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •