T1B

Isn't AZ the 57th state?

Well, she is a fat bitch. Should we really be surprised?

Fat and stupid. She's got that going for her, which is nice.

Not drunk too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1hnwvWhbJw

That's your typical Oporchmonkey voter right there though I can see how she might have trouble finding her ass with both hands. Probably a mudshark, too.

Roach wrote:And this is why dumb ignorant people should not be allowed to vote.

IQ < 100, or jail record, or less than a HS diploma, or no habla english, no vote.

The only people who should be allowed to vote are people with an income tax liability.

No skin in the game? No vote.

mvscal wrote:

Roach wrote:And this is why dumb ignorant people should not be allowed to vote.

IQ < 100, or jail record, or less than a HS diploma, or no habla english, no vote.

The only people who should be allowed to vote are people with an income tax liability.

No skin in the game? No vote.

That sounds like a swell idea (kinda like it myself) but wouldn't that fuck up the whole idea of America and what it stands for? That's harsher than that 3/5th's amendment or whatever the hell it was that said slaves aren't even a whole person.

And what of the millions of gainfully employed Americans making shit wages for various reasons but mostly stemming from corporate greed? Are they somehow beneath a person who is intelligent and/or talented enough to make enough money to meet your criteria on voter eligibility?

H4ever wrote:That sounds like a swell idea (kinda like it myself) but wouldn't that fuck up the whole idea of America and what it stands for?

No, it wouldn't. Actually, it would reinforce everything that America stands for. It is the flip side of "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny." Representation without taxation also results in tyranny.

Mvscal's take gets knee-jerk applause from the rightie crowd, but it is m0ronic at best.

Folks who are disabled, ill, hospitalized, incapacitated, etc., maybe can't vote?

poptart wrote:Mvscal's take gets knee-jerk applause from the rightie crowd, but it is m0ronic at best.

Folks who are disabled, ill, hospitalized, incapacitated, etc., maybe can't vote?

I'm a moderate Republican and how do you equate my post to "knee-jerk" applause from the righties? I believe I had some questions/opposition to it. Or did you read it?

poptart wrote:Folks who are disabled, ill, hospitalized, incapacitated, etc., maybe can't vote?

Nope. I see no compelling reason to permit them or anybody else the ability to use their franchise to help themselves to other people's money.

If they want a say in how things work, they need to pony up or shut the fuck up.

I wasn't talking about you, H.

You didn't applaud his take.


I just know there are righties reading the thread who pumped their fist and said, "RIGHT ON!!" when mvscal spouted that laffable take.

gotcha...my bad.

poptart wrote:I wasn't talking about you, H.

You didn't applaud his take.


I just know there are righties reading the thread who pumped their fist and said, "RIGHT ON!!" when mvscal spouted that laffable take.

Of course you are a pathetic fraud as a so-called "conservative." It comes naturally to bible-beating fucktards.

poptart wrote:I wasn't talking about you, H.

You didn't applaud his take.


I just know there are righties reading the thread who pumped their fist and said, "RIGHT ON!!" when mvscal spouted that laffable take.

Nah, those tards are appropriately posting over at tards.net, where you also participate in that circle jerk, right?

mvscal wrote: No, it wouldn't. Actually, it would reinforce everything that America stands for. It is the flip side of "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny.

It's a catchy phrase, but it's a national fantasy. Full representation in parliament was offered, but rejected - it's a myth

Most of those folks are republicans.
I'm not.

In the first place, there should not BE any income tax, and it's not the government's BUSINESS to need to know how much money a given citizen earns.

Personal liberty and privacy.

All citizens can vote equally.

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:I wasn't talking about you, H.

You didn't applaud his take.


I just know there are righties reading the thread who pumped their fist and said, "RIGHT ON!!" when mvscal spouted that laffable take.

Of course you are a pathetic fraud as a so-called "conservative." It comes naturally to bible-beating fucktards.

How do you figure me to be a conservative fraud? lol

Go sleep it off.

poptart wrote:In the first place, there should not BE any income tax,

Well, there is. That being the case, why should those who don't pay it have any say in how it is distributed? That is the absolute essense of tyranny.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Full representation in parliament was offered, but rejected - it's a myth

It wasn't, so shut the fuck up and piss the fuck off, tard.

mvscal wrote:Well, there is. That being the case, why should those who don't pay it have any say in how it is distributed? That is the absolute essense of tyranny.

Mvscal, if you want to approach it from this POV, then we can also ask why you, a peon, should receive equal representation to say, Donald Trump.

His "skin in the game" dwarfs yours and he ought to be given, what, 1000 votes to your one?

That's fair.

It's been over 150 years since there were any restrictions on voting based on income or property ownership and there is no Constitutional basis for what you suggest we do.

First off, I'd like to take a moment to thank Ms Kazienko, my high school American history teacher for not being a dumbfukk and enlightening me on the whole 3/5th of a person deal. Every fukking time I see alleged educated folks point to it and scream racism, i have to laugh.

Guess who wanted to count them as 3/5th?

Musta been them evil southern racists, right?

Nope. It was just the opposite.

The southerners wanted to count them 1 so they could get more representation in congress. They didn't want to let them vote, but, they sure the fukk wanted to count them.

The northerners didn't want to count them since they couldn't vote. The 3/5th deal was a compromise.

As for voting rights, mvs is right. Voting is how we chose to dispense taxes. Didn't pay any? It's not your concern. I would also like to see the voting age raised to at least 25. You just aren't wise enough prior to that age. Of course, many aren't wise enough well past it, but, oh well.

Members of the military, former and current, should be the only ones with a vote.
They're the ones who truly sacrificed for their country and laid their lives on the line.

Nobody else should even rate.

smackaholic wrote:Voting is how we chose to dispense taxes. Didn't pay any? It's not your concern

Income tax is not the only tax.
Someone may not pay income tax, but they may (almost surely have) paid taxes elsewhere.

When we vote, we are voting for many things, not just how to dispense taxes.

smackaholic wrote:I would also like to see the voting age raised to at least 25. You just aren't wise enough prior to that age. Of course, many aren't wise enough well past it, but, oh well.

You gonna raise the selective service age to 25? Of course you won't. If you're old enough to be conscribed into war, you're old enough to vote.

poptart wrote:Someone may not pay income tax, but they may (almost surely have) paid taxes elsewhere.

I'm sure you'll remember that argument when it comes time to talk about immigration issues.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I would also like to see the voting age raised to at least 25. You just aren't wise enough prior to that age. Of course, many aren't wise enough well past it, but, oh well.

You gonna raise the selective service age to 25? Of course you won't. If you're old enough to be conscribed into war, you're old enough to vote.

you are correct. i would grant waivers for voting and alcohol consumption to those enlisted in the military. But, if you are a 23 year old living in mom's basement working part time at BK, you don't need to be voting.

B wrote:I'm sure you'll remember that argument when it comes time to talk about immigration issues.

Of course.

Will never change the fact that we have LAWS in our country and if someone is not here legally, they need to ... GET OUT.

I know that is horribly racist, but please forgive me.

poptart wrote:Mvscal, if you want to approach it from this POV, then we can also ask why you, a peon, should receive equal representation to say, Donald Trump.

That is irrelevant. What matters is that an individual have a personal stake in the system. You cannot have a responsible government when 50% or more of the population has no tax liability. They simply vote for candidates who will give them other people's money.

It isn't a matter of if our government and our nation collapses. It is a matter of when.

It's been over 150 years since there were any restrictions on voting based on income or property ownership and there is no Constitutional basis for what you suggest we do.

So what? That's what amendments are for, idiot. What is your solution for unfucking the country? More of the same? Hope and change?

poptart wrote:

B wrote:I'm sure you'll remember that argument when it comes time to talk about immigration issues.

Of course.

Will never change the fact that we have LAWS in our country and if someone is not here legally, they need to ... GET OUT.

I know that is horribly racist, but please forgive me.

It's the free market in action. Why do you hate capitalism?

poptart wrote:When we vote, we are voting for many things, not just how to dispense taxes.

Try not to be such a fucking idiot if you can help it. Every single one of those "many things" we vote for require the expediture of tax dollars. Probably about 3/4 of the "many things" we vote for don't actually need doing at least not by the government.

But what the fuck it isn't coming out their pockets, right? No reason not to vote for a bunch of bullshit that other people will have to finance.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I would also like to see the voting age raised to at least 25. You just aren't wise enough prior to that age. Of course, many aren't wise enough well past it, but, oh well.

You gonna raise the selective service age to 25? Of course you won't. If you're old enough to be conscribed into war, you're old enough to vote.

We don't have a draft, tard. And the word you are struggling with is 'conscripted.'

It's the "wouldn't it be nice" housewives that have been fucking thing up for decades. They're the ones at home watching shit daytime tv when programs are flooded with political ads, nodding their head in agreement as they get suckered in every fucking time a spokesman says "save our schools" or "Protect your right to vote".

So the easy way to fix our democratic clusterfuck is to strip voting rights from anyone who regularly watches Maury, any daytime soap or gets their news from those hand-wringers at The Today Show.

OCmike wrote: So the easy way to fix our democratic clusterfuck is to strip voting rights from anyone who regularly watches Maury, any daytime soap or gets their news from those hand-wringers at The Today Show.

Not so fast, Mike.

Mv has a clever plan that involves expanding the middle class to include 95% of the population - without involving moterbike gangs dressed in hockey equipment terrorising the handsome blond people guarding the oil rig.

mvscal wrote:It isn't a matter of if our government and our nation collapses. It is a matter of when.

The path we're on, I agree

So what? That's what amendments are for, idiot. What is your solution for unfucking the country? More of the same? Hope and change?

Pass an amendment, then.

My solution - balanced budgets, cut spending, cut taxes, eliminate useless departments, obey the constitution.
Oh -- and we ought to eliminate the income tax.

You do acknowledge that people are taxed in many ways other than the income tax, yes?

You've spit at the government before and said that you don't pay income tax.
Whether or not that is tongue-in-cheek, clearly you have disdain for that tax.
And yet here you are wanting the gov to keep their nose up in everyone's business by using that tax as a measuring stick for whether or not a legit citizen of the country can vote.

Suppose there is a guy who earned a lot of money in his past.
He doesn't need to work anymore.
And he's not interested in having the government in his business.
So he's kept all of his wealth in cash or gold - which is not banked.

The guy pays no income tax - but he spends a good amount of money - and pays plenty of sales tax along the way.
He can't vote under the mvscal plan.

There is no logical reason to deny him his right to vote.

You, in your effort to fix a system, promote the loss of personal liberty by setting up a system where the gov monitors your finances.

lol

Irony much?

Commie much?

Who's the fraud conservative, again?

You're also crying because a non-income taxpayer gets the same vote as you, and yet you get the same vote as Donald Trump and are nowhere near his level of taxation.

He should tell you that YOU can't vote, you little piece of nothing.

Hypocricy much?

mvscal wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I would also like to see the voting age raised to at least 25. You just aren't wise enough prior to that age. Of course, many aren't wise enough well past it, but, oh well.

You gonna raise the selective service age to 25? Of course you won't. If you're old enough to be conscribed into war, you're old enough to vote.

We don't have a draft, tard.

No we don't. But we do have mandatory registration with Selective Service for all males between 18-25 notwithstanding said lack of draft.

Looking for wasteful programs to eliminate? Start with that one.

Roach wrote:And this is why dumb ignorant people should not be allowed to vote.

IQ < 100, or jail record, or less than a HS diploma, or no habla english, no vote.

yup

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Looking for wasteful programs to eliminate? Start with that one.

I'm not averse to that but how much does that program actually cost and keep in mind that national defense is a constitutionally mandated expenditure.

We should start with expenditures which are not constitutionally mandated.

Department of Education.
Department of Homeland Security.

GONE!

Two good places to start.

Sure, but those two are pretty much chump change. They account for about 2.5% of expenditures.

Welfare, medicare, medicaid and CHIP need to clipped. That's 37%. Axe social security and we can get it up to about 57%. Defense spending also needs to be cut fairly substantially. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan would help there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy201 ... tegory.jpg