OSHAMA shaking hands with DICTATOR CHAVEZ......

[Bradyd]

there shouldnt be voting privileges based on income tax because that would validate the income tax as a morally acceptable tax.
however, the parasite class of america that pays negative tax should in no way be allowed to use the ballot box to continue to put people in power that will seize money from actual tax payers to "spread the wealth".
if you pay no federal tax, fine you have no say who gets elected.

secondly, there is no right to vote for president. nor should there be. we should stop the charade of the popular vote for president and return the country back to federalism like it originally was for the first 30-40 years following the ratifying of the constitution.
people should be voting in local elections, state elections and should know who the fuk these people are. let the states govern their own people. the only federal representative that you should be voting for is your congressman in the house. the senate belongs to the states.

then states that want to legalize drugs, legalize gay marriage, criminilze abortion, etc can do what they want.

I respect your view on the situtation, but there is no need to call those people parasites. They should not vote because of that? I know people out there who look down on people who don't serve in the military. Their argument is that they go out and serve their country while "the rest of us" do nothing. Do you think that is a fair argument? I'm very interested to know why you think these people shouldn't vote? What makes them such a turnoff. And I don't know your opinion on my military comment but I would love to hear it..

[losturmarbles]

Care to debate me on that? I've probably been one the most rational people on this board. For every, I mean every thing I state I bring facts into it. So for someone who probably never seen a post from me before today to say I'm not rational, makes me think that you are one of those people who get's angry and bitter when I disagree with what you have to say. Show me where I have ever been irrational?

debate you on whether you understand logic? sure, i'll start.

here ya go:

Let's not stop at individuals, let's add in the states too. States with the least recipients are the most powerful. While we are at it, people who recieve loans for any reason should be added to the list also. Wait, how would that work? That's right, it wouldn't! No matter how much money you or I may have, that doesn't make us any better than someone who is not as lucky. Creating an official system that allows people to be judge on how much they make is absurd. We are ALL created equal!

why not instead of chasing rabbits, prove how rational you are by addressing data's response...

[Bradyd]

debate you on whether you understand logic? sure, i'll start.

here ya go:


why not instead of chasing rabbits, prove how rational you are by addressing data's response...

Already did.. And I was talking about on the subject. You are entitled to your own opinion on whether I understant logic or not, but judging by the words you use to describe people and the fact that you seem to have a "agree with me or be called names mentatility" what's the point. I'm going to keep making points the way I always have been, whether you think they are rational or not. I don't think you care about anybody's opinon but your own or other's like it anyway.

[losturmarbles]

I respect your view on the situtation, but there is no need to call those people parasites. They should not vote because of that? I know people out there who look down on people who don't serve in the military. Their argument is that they go out and serve their country while "the rest of us" do nothing. Do you think that is a fair argument? I'm very interested to know why you think these people shouldn't vote? What makes them such a turnoff. And I don't know your opinion on my military comment but I would love to hear it..

they are what they are. get out of your bubble and get over it.

btw i know people that look down on people that dont believe in aliens. their argument is that they go out trying to find proof of extraterrestrial life while "the rest of us" do nothing. do you think these aliens shouldnt vote? what makes them such a turnoff. And I don't know your opinion on my alien comment but I would love to hear it..

[losturmarbles]

Already did.. ....

really, where?

[Bradyd]

they are what they are. get out of your bubble and get over it.

btw i know people that look down on people that dont believe in aliens. their argument is that they go out trying to find proof of extraterrestrial life while "the rest of us" do nothing. do you think these aliens shouldnt vote? what makes them such a turnoff. And I don't know your opinion on my alien comment but I would love to hear it..

I never seen a alien before in my life. And if it is a alien, it probably isn't a US citizen which means they can't vote. So, no I don't think aliens should vote.

[losturmarbles]

Already did.. And I was talking about on the subject. You are entitled to your own opinion on whether I understant logic or not, but judging by the words you use to describe people and the fact that you seem to have a "agree with me or be called names mentatility" what's the point. I'm going to keep making points the way I always have been, whether you think they are rational or not. I don't think you care about anybody's opinon but your own or other's like it anyway.

you've been a victim you whole life havent you?
wow, i'm sorry dude...

i wouldnt have called you those horrible names, if i knew you were such a

PATHETIC PANSY THAT CRYS WHENEVER SOMEONE CALLS YOU A NAME ON A MESSAGE BOARD!!!!!

[Bradyd]

you've been a victim you whole life havent you?
wow, i'm sorry dude...

i wouldnt have called you those horrible names, if i knew you were such a

PATHETIC PANSY THAT CRYS WHENEVER SOMEONE CALLS YOU A NAME ON A MESSAGE BOARD!!!!!

Actually, I'm enjoying life and doing very well right now. I just don't like it when people who are blessed or lucky in life, degrade other people who arent so luky.. Call me what you want, but my point was proven. You can't stand people who disagree with you, but you are like most people on these boards. As for me, I don't care one way or another because everybody has their own opinion.

[Data]

Quoting durito:
Every single person in the USA receives assistance from the government in some form or another.

Not to mention states...

Thank you very much but if I wanted to hear his opinion I would remove him from my ignore list. I find myself in position where I have to repeat my previous message:

I am not following your logic with the states and with the loans, please elaborate. Since you oppose the idea, would you also support giving voting rights to the children? Do you follow my analogy?

Please note, I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I think my take makes sense but I am open to a reasonable criticism. I do not think I am stupid and I doubt it is my fault that I do not see you making sense.

[losturmarbles]

Actually, I'm enjoying life and doing very well right now. I just don't like it when people who are blessed or lucky in life, degrade other people who arent so luky.. Call me what you want, but my point was proven. You can't stand people who disagree with you, but you are like most people on these boards. As for me, I don't care one way or another because everybody has their own opinion.

yeah it's all about how "lucky" you get, isnt it? high achievers got rich bc of luck and not hard work and sound choices they made in life.

no, reno would say they got rich by "exploiting" the poor. the poor "less fortunate".

[Bradyd]

Thank you very much but if I wanted to hear his opinion I would remove him from my ignore list. I find myself in position where I have to repeat my previous message:

I am not following your logic with the states and with the loans, please elaborate. Since you oppose the idea, would you also support giving voting rights to the children? Do you follow my analogy?

Please note, I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I think my take makes sense but I am open to a reasonable criticism. I do not think I am stupid and I doubt it is my fault that I do not see you making sense.

Sorry, did not know the history between you two. My point is that everybody recieves some assistance from the government in one way or another. How can we fairly make an official system based on that? I'm no fan of people not paying taxes, but I'm also not a fan of people who are prejudice, but to single them out when everyone has some prejudice in them is wrong, in my opinion.
And as far as the states and loans go, states recieve federal aid. So the states with the most federal aid, assuming we are operating under electoral college, should be edited accordingly.

And loans are a type of assistance, why not factor those in? Sure you could use the argument that they are paid back, but it's still some form of assistance. The other guy getting federal aid could argue he volunteers to help "pay back" his share.

I just think that it's wrong to set up an official system on voting that punishes people who don't have as much as the next person. And you may think it's wrong for people not to pay taxes, so do I, but I also think people who are intolerant of other people is wrong.

About your children comment, some 15-16 year olds know a heck of a lot more than some 30 year olds. (In regards to issues, policies, and politics) I would focus more on how educated a voter is. Not whether you went to college or have your masters, but just knowing about all the issues, who stands for what, and so on. Everybody can take time to learn about this stuff. So age limits have their own place, an rightfully so, but I think it should be more about knowledge.

[Bradyd]

yeah it's all about how "lucky" you get, isnt it? high achievers got rich bc of luck and not hard work and sound choices they made in life.

no, reno would say they got rich by "exploiting" the poor. the poor "less fortunate".

How about the person who works hard and still barely makes it? Let's def. include those hard working Americans. And I never said the rich don't work hard, because some of them do. Some people are born into money, others not so much. So that could be considered lucky. Are you rich? If not, did you work hard to get where you are at today?

[BatemanPatrickl]

Every single person in the USA receives assistance from the government in some form or another.

You don't even LIVE in this country so stick to mud huts and donkeys.

[Thor4140]

also, I would ban TV or any other advertising during elections in order for people who are truly interested in the issues to go see their candidates in live forums or debates. Prevent any party buying an election. Put a ban of any reporting of poll results until the last vote is counted in the west coast.

If u ban Fox's news and nitwit neocon radio im pretty sure most of u ass backwards Bush lickers wouldn't even know where to vote.

[Data]

Sorry, did not know the history between you two.

No problem, there is none. I just have a number of posters on ignore.

My point is that everybody recieves some assistance from the government in one way or another.

OK. let's say there is a working guy and a bum on welfare. The working guy pays his taxes. Those taxes go to bum's welfare, the public schools that both guys kids go to and the police that keeps the streets safe that the bum would not rob the working guy. So, both guys do receive assistance from the government. Is that your point?

And as far as the states and loans go, states recieve federal aid. So the states with the most federal aid, assuming we are operating under electoral college, should be edited accordingly.

If that aid is due to natural disaster then why people leaving where should be penalized? If the disaster is due to state's government screw up then there should be no aid until the state government is replaced.

And loans are a type of assistance, why not factor those in? Sure you could use the argument that they are paid back, but it's still some form of assistance.

This falls into "any assistance" category that I already commented on.

I just think that it's wrong to set up an official system on voting that punishes people who don't have as much as the next person.

And so do I. The difference is you are arguing with "have" in that sentence I would have there "do" instead.

About your children comment, some 15-16 year olds know a heck of a lot more than some 30 year olds. (In regards to issues, policies, and politics) I would focus more on how educated a voter is. Not whether you went to college or have your masters, but just knowing about all the issues, who stands for what, and so on. Everybody can take time to learn about this stuff. So age limits have their own place, an rightfully so, but I think it should be more about knowledge.

My point about children is that they have limited responsibility and rely on their parents to provide for them. Limited responsibility comes with limited rights. It's pretty much the same story as with eating the cake and having it. If a person is irresponsible and requires government to be his mommy, that person should not be treated as an adult and therefore should not have the right to vote.

[andywend]

[quote=Bradyd;1774757]

RenoCool is a shining example of how dangerous the extreme left-wing of the democratic party really is.

He spent the last 8 years trashing his own President. Now that Bush is gone, he is moving on to praising Hugo Chavez and wants the United States of America to start acting more like Venezuela.

Our voting system needs to change. While everyone over the age of 18 should still be allowed to vote, the weight of each vote should be directly related to the amount of income taxes paid by the individual.[/quote]

That's a very stupid idea.. And you would be surpised to find out the number of "wealthy" individuals who voted for Obama as opposed to McCain. Got any more suggestions that change the voting system to produce the results you want??

There is a common misconception when it comes to the democratic party and the rich.

The democratic party is NOT against the rich. They are against those TRYING TO GET RICH.

The reason why people like Warren Buffett, Barbara Streisand, etc strongly favor the democratic party and their belief in higher taxation is because the vast majority of their entire fortunes have already been taxed.

Liberal eliteists like those mentioned above would love to see the top tax bracket increase to 90% because it would have very little effect on them and would make it extremely difficult (if not impossible) for anyone currently working to reach their financial status.

Being rich and paying lots of income tax are NOT one and the same.

Income taxes are the fuel that make the U.S. government engine run and those providing the majority of the fuel should have the biggest say in how the government is run.

Once again, everyone should be allowed to vote but there is no reasonable justification that someone who has been collecting government assistance their entire life should have the same say as someone who is paying $1,000,000/annually in income tax.

Thor4140, I would say you have the IQ of a carrot but that would be an insult to the carrot. You and the entire democratic party are totally USELESS.

[reno cool]

No problem, there is none. I just have a number of posters on ignore.

OK. let's say there is a working guy and a bum on welfare. The working guy pays his taxes. Those taxes go to bum's welfare, the public schools that both guys kids go to and the police that keeps the streets safe that the bum would not rob the working guy. So, both guys do receive assistance from the government. Is that your point?

If that aid is due to natural disaster then why people leaving where should be penalized? If the disaster is due to state's government screw up then there should be no aid until the state government is replaced.

This falls into "any assistance" category that I already commented on.

And so do I. The difference is you are arguing with "have" in that sentence I would have there "do" instead.

My point about children is that they have limited responsibility and rely on their parents to provide for them. Limited responsibility comes with limited rights. It's pretty much the same story as with eating the cake and having it. If a person is irresponsible and requires government to be his mommy, that person should not be treated as an adult and therefore should not have the right to vote.

This is how a supposedly intelligent man sees the world.

He has me on ignore too. Because he only likes to debate with children who don't see through his bullshit

[reno cool]

[quote=andywend;1777116]

There is a common misconception when it comes to the democratic party and the rich.

The democratic party is NOT against the rich. They are against those TRYING TO GET RICH.

The reason why people like Warren Buffett, Barbara Streisand, etc strongly favor the democratic party and their belief in higher taxation is because the vast majority of their entire fortunes have already been taxed.

Liberal eliteists like those mentioned above would love to see the top tax bracket increase to 90% because it would have very little effect on them and would make it extremely difficult (if not impossible) for anyone currently working to reach their financial status.

Being rich and paying lots of income tax are NOT one and the same.

Income taxes are the fuel that make the U.S. government engine run and those providing the majority of the fuel should have the biggest say in how the government is run.

Once again, everyone should be allowed to vote but there is no reasonable justification that someone who has been collecting government assistance their entire life should have the same say as someone who is paying $1,000,000/annually in income tax.

Thor4140, I would say you have the IQ of a carrot but that would be an insult to the carrot. You and the entire democratic party are totally USELESS.

the highlighted part is certainly true. But they're more apt in theory to throw the working poor a crumb. Where as Republicans prefer to make those that are not like them suffer as much as possible.

[Bradyd]

No problem, there is none. I just have a number of posters on ignore.

OK. let's say there is a working guy and a bum on welfare. The working guy pays his taxes. Those taxes go to bum's welfare, the public schools that both guys kids go to and the police that keeps the streets safe that the bum would not rob the working guy. So, both guys do receive assistance from the government. Is that your point?

If that aid is due to natural disaster then why people leaving where should be penalized? If the disaster is due to state's government screw up then there should be no aid until the state government is replaced.

This falls into "any assistance" category that I already commented on.

And so do I. The difference is you are arguing with "have" in that sentence I would have there "do" instead.

My point about children is that they have limited responsibility and rely on their parents to provide for them. Limited responsibility comes with limited rights. It's pretty much the same story as with eating the cake and having it. If a person is irresponsible and requires government to be his mommy, that person should not be treated as an adult and therefore should not have the right to vote.

I see where our debate lies. I'm more willingly to give these "bums" the benefit of the doubt, which perhaps can make me naive. I don't know any people like that and I imagine some are lazy. But I don't want to label them all like that when there could be a legitimate reason for it

And about the children, I def. see your point. But then again, when I was in undergrad 18-22, I was having my parents provide for me. I couldn't go out and get a full time job (only part time) because I was involved in so many things. (French club, Track and Field, Fraternity, volunteering, etc..) My parents didn't even want me to have a part time job. I don't think that I should be limited in what I could do. And how about the Adults who lose their job, they require some assistance? It's just the same as you natural disaster coment, stuff happens that we can't control in life. Just because people have a streak of bad luck, I don't think they should be penalize for it. Anything outside of this, than yes maybe they should.

[Data]

I see where our debate lies. I'm more willingly to give these "bums" the benefit of the doubt, which perhaps can make me naive. I don't know any people like that

Hm, I heard about two more people like you, Siddhartha Sakyamuni in his youth and Suri Cruz. They both did not go out much.

and I imagine some are lazy. But I don't want to label them all like that when there could be a legitimate reason for it

Besides being a kid, what would be a legitimate reason for being lazy, immature, irresponsible, egotistical, unrespectful, always looking for a path of the least resistance person?

And about the children, I def. see your point. But then again, when I was in undergrad 18-22, I was having my parents provide for me. I couldn't go out and get a full time job (only part time) because I was involved in so many things. (French club, Track and Field, Fraternity, volunteering, etc..) My parents didn't even want me to have a part time job. I don't think that I should be limited in what I could do.

I do not see how your case is applicable. You had your family support, you knew that, your family was willing to support you, that is what families do. I do not see a lack of responsibility here.

And how about the Adults who lose their job, they require some assistance?

Unemployment is an insurance that a working person pays for, it is completely different from welfare.

It's just the same as you natural disaster coment, stuff happens that we can't control in life. Just because people have a streak of bad luck, I don't think they should be penalize for it. Anything outside of this, than yes maybe they should.

Good, it seems to me that your position is getting closer to mine.

[jon101]

Wait til Obama lets all the illegals in and lets them vote after they collect their welfare checks, and see what you think.