- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
then people like you would starve. I pay far far far more than I use
Meh more self aggrandizing BS.
then people like you would starve. I pay far far far more than I use
I wonder which party would be most upset if to vote you had to have paid federal income tax?
Meh more self aggrandizing BS.
Are you back to advocating that very policy be put into place?
sorry if the truth upsets you. I find it disgusting that those who don't pay their share of the load constantly whine those who do need to pay even more.
Yea you can...because Fannie and Freddie are around....
As for being a "decent income"... totally depends on where you are. 30 k is nothing in New York and LA... but plenty in rural Texas or the backroads of Mississippi. In general 30k is not decent... that is if you want healthcare insurance as well as a roof over your head and food on the table.
I think the country would be better off if those who had to pay more taxes had more votes. Then politicians couldn't win elections by promising the many, the wealth of the few
I think the country would be better off if those who had to pay more taxes had more votes. Then politicians couldn't win elections by promising the many, the wealth of the few
You would give additional votes to those who pay higher taxes? And this would directly and intentionally and blatantly violate the sacred principle of one person - one vote.
So in your ideology, you directly equate ones right as a citizen with ones ability to pay a specific tax to a certain level of government?
You are anti-American.
one person one vote is hardly sacred-except to those who pander to the masses. It sure isn't sacred in corporate america-you one one share and I own 100 you think you get as many votes? or better yet if you don't have any shares at all?
I laugh at such claims from people such as you
Actually the US Supreme Court says it is.
Reynolds v. Sims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As to corporate America - our government is not yet that of corporate America.... that nightmare scenario may indeed be a wet dream of ALEC supporters and those on the far right, but it is not now our governmental framework. So your comparison is irrelevant and totally without any intellectual foundation of any kind.
Turtle, you can laugh all you want and that is your right. But when you espouse such views as you do, - in this case connecting voting to paying taxes or giving people votes on the basis of how much taxes they do pay - why is it surprising that people find those views to be anti-American. Laughing does not make those conclusions go away.
you love a system that allows leftwingers to buy the votes of the many with the money of the rich
because something is the current law doesn't make it "right"
Turtle , you are running circles in much like the proverbial dog chasing it tail and the debate will go nowhere if you persist.
One man - one vote is indeed a sacred principle in the USA. You may hate it. You may hate the US governmental system. You may have complete contempt for America, its government, its people and its representative systems but that changes nothing that one man one vote is a sacred principle of our system.
its not sacred-it wasn't something the founders supported. Its a prophylactic against worse systems. most intelligent people realize that society would be better off if some people didn't vote but the problem is we have no way of properly screening that. So the least harmful alternative is allowing everyone to vote even though more people know who the last two finalists on American idol was rather than their two senators.
political realities is why we have everyone able to vote and a progressive income tax-not some sacred holiness you appeal to
What ever floats your boat tinker bell.
But the truth is
1. you are nothing special.
2. I highly doubt you ever went to law school.
3. I highly doubt you are rich.
Moderator's Warning: |
Cease the personal attacks or there will be further consequences. |
Turtle , you are running circles in much like the proverbial dog chasing it tail and the debate will go nowhere if you persist. Your statement above does not even make any sense. Its just over the top hyperbole intended for some sort of shock value. That may have worked the first 1,000 times you employed such shock tactics, but now they barely merit a yawn since we have heard your beliefs seemingly forever. It is not your beliefs which make the debate. It is your support for them and you provide none.
I do not know what your views of "right" have anything to do with my statement that one man - one vote was a sacred American principle. I am dealing with the reality of the way things actually are in America.
One man - one vote is indeed a sacred principle in the USA. You may hate it. You may hate the US governmental system. You may have complete contempt for America, its government, its people and its representative systems but that changes nothing that one man one vote is a sacred principle of our system.
One person one vote: exception to the rule. electoral college on Presidential elections. We don't elect Presidents by popular vote, just saying.
one person one vote is hardly sacred-except to those who pander to the masses. It sure isn't sacred in corporate america-you one one share and I own 100 you think you get as many votes? or better yet if you don't have any shares at all?
yes indeed... we all know that. And you bring up a great reason to get rid of the damn thing.
sadly Turtle is using the idea of connecting how much you pay in taxes to how many votes he believes one should get. He seems to want a corporate shareholder voting system for America.
#109 from Turtle
I have no doubt such a anti-American scheme is being floated in the circles of ALEC in New Orleans this very week.
Your position is confusing
is it anti American even though it was the rule when this country was founded? Or is it anti american because the suffrage was extended? or is it anti American because if you don't like it it is so?
Your position is anti-American because you would give in to the wet dream of ALEC and allow corporate principles to subvert, ravish and rape American democratic values and procedures. Your position does not appear to actually recognize what political, economic and social conditions are in 21st century America as it exists today. Telling me about the Founders is irrelevant unless its a history lesson as to the way it was back in 1787 when we were a nation of 4 million farmers and small merchants in a small backwater isolated nation.