Would you vote for the compromise?

haymarket said:

This is actually becoming quite funny. Look, I get it that you don't like being the butt of the joke. Nobody does. But everytime you deny the painfully obvious it just keeps you in the spotlight all the longer.

btw- do you know of any other historical Three-Fifths Compromises?

Get real Hal - you were taken in and bamboozled. Its okay and happens to all of us at one time or the other.

Click to expand...

It is sad that this is the best response you have. Very sad.

hallam said:

It is sad that this is the best response you have. Very sad.

Click to expand...

It is sad indeed that you would be hookwinked to defend such an outright tongue in cheek proposal. But at least it provided some laughs.

You still don't get the Three Fifths Compromise thing do you? You still stick your fingers in your ears and try to pretend its just a unusual coincidence? Do you really think that of all the fractions in the world to pick form, this one just happened to come out to 3/5?

Does this mean that the rich can't vote for (the overwhelming number of) candidates who support their interests? Does this mean people in the alcohol industry aren't allowed to vote for a candidate that advocates the lowering of the drinking age? Does this mean that people making millions off war aren't allowed to vote at all (see what I did there?)?

This is the most absolutely BS position I've ever heard on these forums, and I'm about 70% of the way toward believing that the OP entirely fabricated TurtleDude's opinion, or if he didn't, that TurtleDude is joking or just being provocative.

I can't possibly believe anyone can even think of supporting him on this. I have more respect for the human race than that.

Turtle, if he did distort your views, just correct me, I wasn't going to read all 41 pages to see if he did, I only read your first 2 comments.

*Goes and cries in a cold shower*

SirPwn4lot said:

Does this mean that the rich can't vote for (the overwhelming number of) candidates who support their interests? Does this mean people in the alcohol industry aren't allowed to vote for a candidate that advocates the lowering of the drinking age? Does this mean that people making millions off war aren't allowed to vote at all (see what I did there?)?

This is the most absolutely BS position I've ever heard on these forums, and I'm about 70% of the way toward believing that the OP entirely fabricated TurtleDude's opinion, or if he didn't, that TurtleDude is joking or just being provocative.

I can't possibly believe anyone can even think of supporting him on this. I have more respect for the human race than that.

Turtle, if he did distort your views, just correct me, I wasn't going to read all 41 pages to see if he did, I only read your first 2 comments.

*Goes and cries in a cold shower*

Click to expand...

Believe him SirPwn. Turtle is devoted to one thing above all else and that is him keeping what he claims is his enormous wealth and the status he believes it gives him over the unwashed masses. To do this he is an enthusiastic supporter of the Republicans since they are an enthusiastic supporter of the wealthy over the unwashed masses. This entire "net taxpayer" BS is a scheme hatched by right wingers to set the stage to disenfranchise people who mostly tend to vote Democratic. He came right out in this thread and admitted that fact. When I continued to press him with facts showing that his scheme would disenfranchise Democratic voters in much higher numbers he finally came out as admitted

And yes, it would impact the dems more. DUH!

Click to expand...

that was in post #220 in this very thread.

They are scared to death about the changing demographics in this nation and need more weapons in their arsenal to overcome the great unwashed who will vote for policies they do not want and fear it will lessen their fortunes and power. So believe it my friend, Turtle is sincere and motivated and of single purpose in this crusade.

6 months ago, the president brought the tax issue to the American people. There were no other voices, save Pelosi and a few obscure Congressmen and women, since the election was on the horizon. Quite frankly, Reid couldn't gather the Senate behind a core Democratic principle. So - Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves. The alternative to signing this would be disaster. I also think it's important to remember that there are some pretty progressive tradeoffs in the legislation. I like the payroll tax reduction and the breaks for middle class Americans.