• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you vote for the compromise?

How would you vote on the compromise as described in the OP?

  • Total voters
    49
haymarket said:
Do those who support this stupid power grab realize that Turtle is intentionally redefining the very reality of what TAXES are in the first place and who pays TAXES in this country to justify what he wants to do? Wake up please. There are all kinds of taxes paid by almost everybody in this country. Get over yourself and your precious net taxpayer BS.
Click to expand...


OH the Drama
 

Attachments

  • DRAMA.jpg
    DRAMA.jpg
    3.1 KB · Views: 133
TurtleDude said:
yes, yes and wrong. what is currently legal can change, the constitution changed to allow people to vote that the founders didn't want voting. But your claim its not American is a load of horsepoop. Its like claiming its not fair. its a term that has no merit
Click to expand...

Well put your money where your mouth is then. You are one rich dude - or so you keep pounding your chest and telling anyone who will listen. Join in with your fellow rich buddies and begin a public campaign to put this scheme into effect. Try to change the Constitution to reflect your power grab desires.

It would like Toto pulling back the curtain and showing the old feeble man for what he really is.

Be my guest. Do it.
 
haymarket said:
Oh the Truth.
Click to expand...

what truth? you claimed that such a notion was unAmerican, and it was demonstrated to you how it was solidly within America's tradition and legal history. you claimed it was unConstitutional; and it was demonstrated to you how it was in fact solidly within the realm of the Constitution of these United States. you claimed that it was part of a secret right-wing fascist plot, only to be informed that fascist plots of the era you refernced were left-wing, to which you seem to have responded with an implicit claim of mind-reading abilities.

i'd say you are pretty much 0-3 for this thread.
 
cpwill said:
hey now....


you know who else accused others of drama, turtle.......???



that's right....

Hitler......






:lamo
Click to expand...

holy mackeral

turtle Uber alles?
 
haymarket said:
Well put your money where your mouth is then. You are one rich dude - or so you keep pounding your chest and telling anyone who will listen. Join in with your fellow rich buddies and begin a public campaign to put this scheme into effect. Try to change the Constitution to reflect your power grab desires.

It would like Toto pulling back the curtain and showing the old feeble man for what he really is.

Be my guest. Do it.
Click to expand...

we prefer running the world quietly

my skull and bones brothers and I fly around in our black helicopters dropping in on the illuminati and the freemasons and then head off to the trilateral commission meetings.

be afraid, be very afraid
 
cpwill said:
what truth? you claimed that such a notion was unAmerican, and it was demonstrated to you how it was solidly within America's tradition and legal history. you claimed it was unConstitutional; and it was demonstrated to you how it was in fact solidly within the realm of the Constitution of these United States. you claimed that it was part of a secret right-wing fascist plot, only to be informed that fascist plots of the era you refernced were left-wing, to which you seem to have responded with an implicit claim of mind-reading abilities.

i'd say you are pretty much 0-3 for this thread.
Click to expand...

Sorry CP but you apparently did not realize that such restrictions were changed in the first quarter of the 19th century. So now are you going to claim that slavery itself is Constitutonal and legal and American even though it has long been changed in that same Constitution?

When we made those changes nearly 200 years ago, we changed t what was legal, and we changed what was acceptable in the American system.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Sorry CP but you apparently did not realize that such restrictions were changed in the first quarter of the 19th century. So now are you going to claim that slavery itself is Constitutonal and legal and American even though it has long been changed in that same Constitution?
Click to expand...

strawman. there are several amendments that were bad ideas. Prohibition being the worst. the 16 and 17th amendments were bad ideas and there are more than a few people who want to revisit part of the 14th concerning anchor babies.

slavery has nothing to do with it-save perhaps the concept of making people work for months to pay for the services others use
 
TurtleDude said:
strawman. there are several amendments that were bad ideas. Prohibition being the worst. the 16 and 17th amendments were bad ideas and there are more than a few people who want to revisit part of the 14th concerning anchor babies.

slavery has nothing to do with it-save perhaps the concept of making people work for months to pay for the services others use
Click to expand...

So if you believe that Turtle then put your money where your mouth is and do the same we did for Prohibition. Change the Constitution and get publicly behind the move with your money and your allies.

Sure there are racists who want to change the 14th Amendment. So what?
 
haymarket said:
So if you believe that Turtle then put your money where your mouth is and do the same we did for Prohibition. Change the Constitution and get publicly behind the move with your money and your allies.

Sure there are racists who want to change the 14th Amendment. So what?
Click to expand...

so people are RACISTS for not wanting the children of illegals who come here in violation of our laws to be citizens?

when liberals start using the term "racist" it pretty much means they are out of intelligent arguments.
 
haymarket said:
Sorry CP but you apparently did not realize that such restrictions were changed in the first quarter of the 19th century.
Click to expand...

absolutely they were (that's how we got that bastard Jackson, i mean, i love him, but wow, what a prick), but they were changed via statute at the state level; there were no Constitutional Amendments on the matter. so to pretend that limiting the franchise based on property is any more or less Constitutional than limiting it based on age or whether or not one is a felon is baseless.

So now are you going to claim that slavery itself is Constitutonal and legal and American even though it has long been changed in that same Constitution?
Click to expand...

no, that one we did have an amendment on.
 
TurtleDude said:
so people are RACISTS for not wanting the children of illegals who come here in violation of our laws to be citizens?

when liberals start using the term "racist" it pretty much means they are out of intelligent arguments.
Click to expand...

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.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

:lamo


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


haymarket, come on, you can't be that stupid. i'm going to give you a 'freebie' and pretend this post didn't happen ;)
 
cpwill said:
:lamo


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


haymarket, come on, you can't be that stupid. i'm going to give you a 'freebie' and pretend this post didn't happen ;)
Click to expand...

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.
 
haymarket said:
It would proportionately impact those person in far greater percentages that it would White voters. That is the personification of a racist policy.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously arguing that any policy that would disproportionately impact minorities is a racist policy?
 
haymarket said:
Keep your pass. And making jokes about your own motives do not change them.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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...... :D
 
RightinNYC said:
Are you seriously arguing that any policy that would disproportionately impact minorities is a racist policy?
Click to expand...

yeah. that's why i tried to give him a pass. we all say supid things, from time to time.
 
cpwill said:
yeah. that's why i tried to give him a pass. we all say supid things, from time to time.
Click to expand...

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.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
TurtleDude said:
those people aren't tax payers?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
hallam said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

You have presented nothing more than a logical fallacy. Lack of logic does not sway me at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom