Yes, across the board.
Yes, for infrastructure.
Yes, for education. (K-12)
Yes, for job creation.
Yes, for social programs.
Yes, for medical care.
Yes, for the environment.
Yes, but... not for some particular programs (please elaborate).
No. None. Not for anything at all.
Undecided. Convince me either way.
this is incorrect. Slaves populaces were only apportioned 3/5ths representation - no human being was ever counted as 3/5ths a person. In addition, freed blacks were counted fully for representation.The "all men are created equal" phrase appears only in the Declaration of Independence. The writers of the Constitution had a slightly different opinion. If you are talking about the census, the Constitution proved for apportionment based on the formula that Whites, including those bound for a period of years, were counted as a whole, Negroes as 3/5 a person
Unless of course, they lived in Delaware (1776), Maryland (1776), New Hampshire (1784), New York (1777), Pennsylvania (1776), or Massachusetts (1780), those being the states and the respective dates that they extended voting rights to blacks.If you are asking about the vote, Only white males and freedman had that privilege. Indians, Negroes, and women not so much.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
I agree with Thunder. I am willing to pay more taxes (but don't want mine going to war). I almost wish each person could have a personal multiple choice on how much of their taxes goes to fund what in the government. The flip side of that is people who do not understand things that are a must, like the EPA and food inspection. Children could starve, because I can see a huge amount of people on the right who would want welfare totally elimated.
"The measure off intelligence is the ability to change." Albert Einstein
Ya see, back in the old country, everything was broken down into class and the government made those decisions. It's just common sense and a little historical knowledge.
Giving someone money, doesn't make him equal.
There are other ways in which your property is at risk besides someone physically breaking into your house and taking your television. A guy who invested $500,000 in a financial agreement has a lot more riding on making sure his contract is enforced, than a guy who invested $50 in an agreement. So yes, you absolutely benefit more from the guys with big guns, because you have more to lose.and your braying that my property is protected more is beyond moronic. having been a prosecutor I know damn well that it is poor areas that most crimes are perpetrated in. People like me have strong locks, private alarms or security, and in my case, substantial ability to kill and defend against criminals. we have dogs, both my wife and son are martial artists and are both in the top five percent nationally in terms of shooting skill. our area is not one where there is much crime at all
You are a sad little man. I pity you.that is where the welfare socialist nonsense falls on its ass.
Last edited by Kandahar; 11-01-11 at 12:18 AM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
Interesting! Obscured by the way this question (poll) is presented is how overwhelmingly DP posters (who, on the whole, are better educated than the average Joe) support higher taxes (about 7 to 1 or 80 ok with higher taxes and 12 opposed in all circumstances) at this writing. I hope Turtle Dude doesn't toss and turn too much this evening. He needs a good nights sleep.
Last edited by upsideguy; 11-02-11 at 10:14 PM.