View Poll Results: How would you vote on the compromise as described in the OP?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • For

    4 6.90%
  • Against

    50 86.21%
  • Rabbit

    4 6.90%
Page 20 of 41 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 405

Thread: Would you vote for the compromise?

  1. #191
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,093

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post



    well, turtle, i suppose he caught you. go tell the rest of your white supremacist giant-alien-lizard buddies that he gig is up


    haymarket, come on, you can't be that stupid. i'm going to give you a 'freebie' and pretend this post didn't happen
    Keep your pass. And making jokes about your own motives do not change them.

    So cpwill - prove that I am wrong. I have already introduced into this thread factual information from the Census on income distribution in America. I demonstrated how this plan would disproportionately impact African Americans and Hispanics because they are disproportionately in the lower two income quintiles and would fall in that 47% you want to target.

    So show me where this scheme WOULD NOT impact those minority groups disproportionately. We know that Turtle does not back up his claims with evidence but can you?

    And tell you what - you have all night to do it and I will return in the morning to see what facts and figures you have come up with to prove me wrong.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #192
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    It would proportionately impact those person in far greater percentages that it would White voters. That is the personification of a racist policy.
    Are you seriously arguing that any policy that would disproportionately impact minorities is a racist policy?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #193
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Keep your pass. And making jokes about your own motives do not change them.
    no joke, you caught us, haymarket. our desire to have an informed and involved electorate is nothing more than a secret plot to turn America into Nazi Germany and haul all of the African Americans (which would include part of my family - or do they get a pass because some of us are white and some of us are half-and-half?) off to death camps where we can reeducate them to fly our black helicopters (see? black helicopters. because they're serving the white man) on our secret missions to murder innocent liberals.

    So cpwill - prove that I am wrong.
    guilty until proven innocent eh? okay, i will prove you wrong as soon as you prove that you are not a child-rapist, you pedophile, you

    I have already introduced into this thread factual information from the Census on income distribution in America. I demonstrated how this plan would disproportionately impact African Americans and Hispanics because they are disproportionately in the lower two income quintiles and would fall in that 47% you want to target
    i don't want to target any particular subset; all Americans who vote should pay taxes and bear the cost of their decisions. disparate impact is in no way evidence of racist intent. when you raise taxes on small business owners, for example, you disproportionately raise taxes on Americans of Asian descent; does the fact that you oppose extending the Bush tax cuts on those making above $250,000 mean that you hate Asians?

    admit it, you're a secret leftover agent from the FDR administration and you just want to herd them back all into camps. i'm connecting all the dots as we speak......

  4. #194
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Are you seriously arguing that any policy that would disproportionately impact minorities is a racist policy?
    yeah. that's why i tried to give him a pass. we all say supid things, from time to time.

  5. #195
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    yeah. that's why i tried to give him a pass. we all say supid things, from time to time.
    I think he actually believes that, but I'll give him a chance to confirm or deny before I start pointing out why that's absurd.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #196
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,814

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Your plan is one of the most obvious racist schemes that anyone has come up with to disenfranchise massive numbers of African American and Hispanic voters. It would proportionately impact those person in far greater percentages that it would White voters. That is the personification of a racist policy. You and will are simply engaging in the right wing tactic to attack the use of the term to take it off the table so that their motives can be hidden and not exposed.
    so its blacks and hispanics who violate our borders and immigration laws the most. that sounds like a RACIST claim to me.

    I have done more than a few immigration cases-in front of two different federal circuits and it was ASIANs facing deportation in almost every case I handled.

    why should illegals be able to violate our laws and make their children citizens

    why is that good for AMERICA



  7. #197
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    those people aren't tax payers?
    You have no idea if they are net taxpayers or not, but considering that the most commonly used figure at the moment is 47% of the US population did not pay net income taxes. Therefore, there is a good chance that those at the lowest income level were within that 47% that did not pay net income taxes. Unless you would like to change your stance on who the net taxpayers aren't and are. Many of that 47% were the lowest income earners, not just people living on welfare. And the study I posted found that those in the lowest income brackets are more likely, on average, to give a higher percentage of their pay to charity. This means that at least some of those who aren't paying net taxes (including myself) give to charity, and from this research, many of them give a higher percentage of their paycheck to charity (and most likely their free time, according this study) then those in higher income brackets.

    This study even confirms one of the things that you keep stating, that conservatives tend to give more, on average, than liberals. The difference is that you seem to believe that most of that 47% are liberals, when I would be willing to bet that it is at least closer to 50/50 if not leaning toward more of that 47% being conservatives.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #198
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,814

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    you mean they have enough income to pay some federal income tax then?

    let me tell you where I stand-I oppose all income or estate taxes. I support a consumption tax and use taxes. I prefer a flat tax over a progressive tax because it limits the power of congress substantially and prevents politicians pandering to the many at the expense of those who pay too much



  9. #199
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Many of that 47% were the lowest income earners, not just people living on welfare. And the study I posted found that those in the lowest income brackets are more likely, on average, to give a higher percentage of their pay to charity. This means that at least some of those who aren't paying net taxes (including myself) give to charity, and from this research, many of them give a higher percentage of their paycheck to charity (and most likely their free time, according this study) then those in higher income brackets.

    This study even confirms one of the things that you keep stating, that conservatives tend to give more, on average, than liberals. The difference is that you seem to believe that most of that 47% are liberals, when I would be willing to bet that it is at least closer to 50/50 if not leaning toward more of that 47% being conservatives.
    Incomes under $15k: 73-25 Obama
    Incomes $15-30k: 60-37 Obama
    Incomes $30-50k: 55-43 Obama

    I would wager that those 47% are disproportionately democrats.

    Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #200
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,802

    Re: Would you vote for the compromise?

    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    And yet these restrictions exists already. It is only your opinion that says they are biologically appropriate. If a 3 month year old is a citizens, then under you argument they should be allowed to vote. Anything else is a arbitrary limit placed on voting rights which destroys your argument. I love how you completely ignore that you limit voting rights of prisoners or fail to acknowledge that the age and prisoner restriction we currently have a completely arbitrary. I might add if capacity is what the age restriction is measuring then it completely fails. We should move this to mental capacity because their are millions of people who do things for immature and stupid reasons including voting at ages well above age 18. We arbitrarily say that those 18 are acting in a responsible manner. Btw, you have still failed to rationally (or constitutionally) show how this restriction is wrong. You have only appealed to emotion which is a fallacy.
    Not an appeal to emotion at all. I explained biologically the reasons for the restriction and also explained that more studies need to be done to confirm this. You did nothing to refute anything I said.



    It is disenfranchising people who game the system and are not living up to their civic duty. This country requires its citizens to support our government. Again, I have stated one way to do this and have admitted to you that there are other ways to support ones government. However, you have failed to show those other ways and you have failed to show why this restriction is wrong other than an appeal to emotion. You call it fascism to appeal to disgust generally found with that terms. You have jumped to Godwin's law without actually presenting an argument. Further, you have no idea about what Fascism is. Fascism is political system that requires everyone to hold singular political positions. Nothing in this argument says that our political parties would combine into one political party. Nothing in this argument says that Democrats and Republicans would hold hands and sing kumbyya. This line of your counter argument is a cop-out.
    Your attempts to indicate logical fallacies are impotent. The description you gave describes a fascist government. You walked into it and are now scrambling to get out. But you can't because it's still what you present. I have also shown that the restriction is based on biology... which you have completely failed at refuting. Further, you have presented a false premise that contributions are only monetary. As your entire argument is based on this fallacy, your entire argument has no logical basis. You are doing nothing but swinging in the air. You have still been unable to justify disenfrachising people for any reason other than your false premise. No matter how you slice it, your logic is non-existent.




    Is any limit on voting arbitrary, yes. However, my argument here was against saying that net taxation is arbitrary which it isn't.
    Since there are other ways that people contribute to society, the choice YOU made is arbitrary.



    Again Godwin's law. This is not a real argument since your use of fascism is completely incorrect. Here is a link to the definition of fascism so that you can see that this has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    Perhaps you should read a bit more on fascism and dictatorial regimes. In these states, the arbitrary limiting of rights is put into place in order to solidify the political power of the elites. This is precisely what you are proposing. Remember, Godwins Law only applies if it is not accurate. In this case, it is on target.

    This compromise promotes equality.
    Not in the least. It promotes the elimination of rights, different status of citizens, and fosters more class warfare. Again, you are proposing things that conservatives usually come out against.




    I already have. I will so again one last time. Those who are represented now when they are not net taxpayers get representation. Those who are represented now when they are net taxpayers get representation. Therefore everyone gets the same representation without regard to putting into the government. This creates an unequal system. Anyone can see that those who do not put in get what those who do put in. If it is not their money, they shouldn't get as large of a voice in the say of what that money does. I don't care if you are rich or poor. I don't care if you are Democrat or Republican. The actual position you hold are irrelevant. This is a more equal system because those are taxed get representation and those who are not do not get representation at the same rate.
    This is you spouting the same false premise. There are other ways people contribute. A logical fallacy doesn't prove your position. It makes it look weaker... which is what you keep doing.





    My position is that there may be more ways to contribute to support the government. That is for society to decide. However, you have failed to demonstrate why net taxation is a wrong way to define support within those ways to contribute. Until you provide a rationale argument, you emotion will not sway me.
    You have presented nothing more than a logical fallacy. Lack of logic does not sway me at all.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 11-27-10 at 02:39 AM.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Page 20 of 41 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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