Fact: That act alone would break in half the left nut, D-bagger vote. Bubble Gummers need not apply!

What an ass. Why not take this to the next logical step and let those with more property have more votes too?

what no comments from grandpa Gordon and not-so-fast supporting this asshole? He seems like the perfect tea bagger spokesman, why aren’t you rallying around the constitution the way the founding fathers wrote it
This is what Amerikkkan democracy should look like.

i LOVE THIS IDEA!
I’m kewl with it,, i own properties

hanoisteve said:
He seems like the perfect tea bagger spokesman, why aren’t you rallying around the constitution the way the founding fathers wrote it

What did they write in the Constitution about voting rights?

Allowing just taxpayers would suffice … Lol

murf said:
Allowing just taxpayers would suffice … Lol

OH,,, LMAO,,, VERY GOOD murf!!!

“Allowing just taxpayers would suffice … Lol”

That means some business owners and some of the top earners in the country would NOT be able to vote, while people on Student Visas, non-permanent residents and permanent residents would. Brilliant!! I am all for that!

Dooderama said:
“Allowing just taxpayers would suffice … Lol”

That means some business owners and some of the top earners in the country would NOT be able to vote, while people on Student Visas, non-permanent residents and permanent residents would. Brilliant!! I am all for that!

Jesus,, look at this dolt
How convoluted and contrived can you get?!?

I sense you do neither,, won property or pay taxes!

I’m both amused and distressed by the historical ignorance I’m seeing displayed by some. The idea of property qualificiations for voting was the norm in the early days of the republic (actually, pretty much anywhere where there were elections for office), rooted in the perfectly legitimate belief that those who have property are tied to the community and so would be most likely to vote in a manner designed to protect the community in the long term. I’ve heard the same argument raised over whether or not college students should vote in their hometowns or where the colleges are located (I live near a place where elections for the town supervisor have been swayed by college students and the locals get mightily p.o’ed about that, seeing as how the students aren’t year round residents).

The Founders were also motivated by what I believe to be a legitimate concern over what would happen if the propertyless were given the vote: Madison worried either that they might use their voting power to take away the property of others (the ability to democratically steal people’s property was entertainingly documented in P.J. O’Rourke’s Parliament of Whores), or else their votes could be bought off by a demagogue who would promise them relief from their propertyless status (yes, I know: that has NEVER happened).

As for the relation of Phillips’s comments to the Tea Party, I think you can argue that his basic point is one central to the Tea Partiers, namely, the belief that the government is stealing the property of ordinary, hardworking Americans in order to buy the political support of various constituencies to the end of enhancing its power. I don’t think that talking about it in terms of restricting voting to property owners is particularly smart (the mechanism for determining who could vote would have to be fairly complicated and runs against the fetish Americans have for “democracy”), but the concerns motivating such talk are neither stupid nor trivial.

God love the teabaggers: they murder the future of the Republican party very time they open their mouths.

teabaggers

murf said:
Allowing just taxpayers would suffice … Lol

Who doesn’t pay taxes of one sort or another?

Some_Dude said:
God love the teabaggers: they murder the future of the Republican party very time they open their mouths.

teabaggers

That’s exactly what the liberal talking heads were saying before the election; with a few exceptions, it didn’t quite work out that way, though, did it?

Some_Dude said:
God love the teabaggers: they murder the future of the Republican party very time they open their mouths.

teabaggers

Do you realize that has been said since Nixon ?

fenngibbon said:
Who doesn’t pay taxes of one sort or another?

Are you serious ?

murf said:
fenngibbon said:
Who doesn’t pay taxes of one sort or another?

Are you serious ?

I know!
lol
it’s NOT even worth it is it
jeeze

If he wants to use that analogy then only those who serve must be talking about national security issues. So the Cheney clowns/clan and the wretched neocons should keep there warmongering to themselves.

skyfet said:
If he wants to use that analogy then only those who serve must be talking about national security issues. So the Cheney clowns/clan and the wretched neocons should keep there warmongering to themselves.

Oh, so you serve?

Some_Dude said:
God love the teabaggers: they murder the future of the Republican party very time they open their mouths. teabaggers

Fact:An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

It’s a form of class warfare. There are plenty of people who pay taxes and are invested in communities but aren’t fiscally able to own property.

So many whack-jobs So little time.

Judson you are an idiot.

Pablo said:
What did they write in the Constitution about voting rights?

They did write a system so it can be changed, now women can vote, and a class of people are not property and we all have equal protection ( in theory) if Murf think only tax payers should allowed to vote. would it be ok for a convicted felon who bought a pack of smokes, and paid tax be allowed to vote? or Exxon mobile to be excluded from participation in elections through political contributions ( citizens united ) because some years they pay no tax at all?

BlackWidow said:
So many whack-jobs So little time.

Fact: Grow some extra hands?

If you support this, you support Kings and Queens deciding what the people do. Since.. you know, the land is owned by the king and queen.

How could anyone support this?

Does this mean if you are paying off a mortgage for your house, by the bank, then technically, the bank should get your vote?

Just4thefax said:
Fact:An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.The second test average was a D!No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.

Your comment makes sense, but let’s take a look at it in a real world application.

Your analogy has students who don’t work hard and expend little effort versus those who do work hard and expend great effort. Here’s the thing, though: What about the students who work very hard and yet still can’t get a B or even a C? What about the students who are born smart and don’t need to expend much effort and still get an A anyway? There are people who work very, very hard who have little to show for it.

I’m with you, I don’t believe in rewarding those who choose not to make an effort. I’m repulsed by those who buy new cars using welfare money. The problem is, there are people out there who work harder in one day than many executives work in one week or even a month. Some people have two jobs, on top of supporting a family, and sometimes, they are even going to school, and make substantially smaller money than someone who makes over a million dollars a year.

Now, I’m not saying that we should tax the crap out of the rich down to where they take home as much as the middle class so everyone is equal income-wise. I’m saying, tax the rich a little more, back to pre-Bush levels, which is what would happen if the tax rates for the top 1% would be allowed to expire. Keep the tax cuts for the middle class. This would not resemble the analogy you cited. There will still be a huge gap in income between the top earners and the middle class.

Someone may accuse me of playing the apples and oranges game, but you get my point. I’m not trying to be combative, I respect your opinion, but heres where I and many other liberals stand.

certainly the only people that should vote are those paying income tax.

blurgh. said:
It’s a form of class warfare. There are plenty of people who pay taxes and are invested in communities but aren’t fiscally able to own property.

That’s not true. They might pay sales taxes, but only because they can’t avoid them. Then they get to deduct the sales taxes they do pay on their income tax return and also receive the Earned Income Tax Credit welfare payment. They don’t pay crap.

Just4thefax said:
Fact:An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.The second test average was a D!No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.

You do understand what the word “fact” means, right?

While your story nicely illustrates your point, it is not a fact. It an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

justanotherconservative said:
certainly the only people that should vote are those paying income tax.

Why not those paying property taxes or sales taxes or capital gains taxes?

disenlightened said:
That’s not true. They might pay sales taxes, but only because they can’t avoid them. Then they get to deduct the sales taxes they do pay on their income tax return and also receive the Earned Income Tax Credit welfare payment. They don’t pay crap.

Who do you think “they” are? I know that I’ve been working every year that I’ve been out of college, paying my taxes each since my first job when I was in high school.

While I don’t pretend that everyone who doesn’t own property pays their taxes, there isn’t enough ground in any argument that says the ability to chose the elected leaders who oversee the country’s domestic and foreign policy should be limited to those who are able to afford owning property.

‘No taxation without representation’ is so 1776.

Another example of the liberals misinterpreting a Tea Party member. He was talking about what the founding fathers had said but that it’s not in the Constitution. Why are liberal so afraid of the Constitution?

Pablo said:
What did they write in the Constitution about voting rights?

The 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution address eligibility to vote. But the Constitution as ratified in 1788 did not — each state decided who could vote, and many of them had a property-ownership requirement. In most cases the limits were set so low that anyone working at the most menial labor could qualify. However, slaves, indentured servants, and felons were not allowed to vote; and most states gradually switched to a residency requirement as evidence that a person had an attachment to the jurisdiction before he was eligible to vote.

Despite the ratification of the 15th Amendment, most blacks and women could not vote. Chinese were barred from voting until the 20th century, and American Indians were considered members of sovereign tribes and not US citizens until 1924.

I support much of what the Tea Party stand for, but this man is an idiot for suggesting that, for example, a man taking and returning gunfire in Afghanistan to protect us shouldn’t be able to vote by virtue of the fact that he rents his home back in the United States? What a moron.

I like Walter Williams idea. Everybody gets one vote and for every five thousand in taxes you pay you get an extra vote.

1. To be fair to Phillips, he did *not* say doing something like that makes sense now. He just said it made sense in the past. Despite that, the headline of this post and a post by a TP opponent group claimed he thought it makes sense now, when that’s not clear.

2. That said, apparently Matt Schneider hasn’t been paying attention. The TPers are so far out on the fringe that they think anyone who disagrees with them is in fact a second-class citizen (or a COMMIE PINKO SOCIALIST). They aren’t helping the U.S., they’re just being useful idiots for a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations.

For the actual facts about them, see my extensive coverage (around 150 posts since Feb. ’09):

http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties

It appears there may have been more to this video than is shown here. I get the feeling, watching this video that I came in, in the middle of a message. Obviously, no one in the Tea-Party adheres to that position and anyone who did would be asked, politely, to leave. I think the entire video comment should be shown to give us a precursor to what he is trying to say, or answer.

Atticus Draco said:
i LOVE THIS IDEA!I’m kewl with it,, i own properties

You asshat, the bank owns “your” properties,
that leaves you and just about everybody off the voting lists
and leaves Citi, BOA, TD etc with the last of our rights and liberties
but I’m sure you’re just fine with that since your head lives up the butt
of those giant corporations you just love to be screwed by

fenngibbon said:
That’s exactly what the liberal talking heads were saying before the election; with a few exceptions, it didn’t quite work out that way, though, did it?

No, they were reporting on the usual ebb and flow of Congress, the apathy of liberal voters, and how charged the right was. But I doubt your news diet actually includes a viewpoint beyond FNC, let alone anything approaching objective.

iris said:
You asshat, the bank owns “your” properties,
that leaves you and just about everybody off the voting lists
and leaves Citi, BOA, TD etc with the last of our rights and liberties
but I’m sure you’re just fine with that since your head lives up the butt
of those giant corporations you just love to be screwed by

Yea I was lucky enough to purchase a property prior to the bubble. It’s almost paid off, as I use it for rental and extra income, but it’s clearly never going to really be “mine”. A house is just a wooden structure that sits in the rain and rots. My personal investments have returned magnitudes more revenue to me.

Blair Maury said:
You do understand what the word “fact” means, right? While your story nicely illustrates your point, it is not a fact. It an urban legend. http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Fact: I use it as a call sign since it projects power. Thats the fact, plus I only post facts!

Just4thefax said:
Fact: I use it as a call sign since it projects power. Thats the fact, plus I only post facts!

Project power all you want.

Fact: You posted something that wasn’t a fact.
Fact: This fact was easily verifiable.

Seriously fuck this guy. as American’s we have truly only one real right, and that is to vote. and this dipshit whos backed by the tea party who’s “all about the constitution” i might add, whats to take that right away from people because they don’t own property.. seriously this is the kinda bullshit this country is stooping too.

======\\\ http://www. betterwhol es al er.us///===========
handbag $33

AF tank woman $17

puma slipper woman $30

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42$$$$$$$

blurgh. said:
Who do you think “they” are? I know that I’ve been working every year that I’ve been out of college, paying my taxes each since my first job when I was in high school.

While I don’t pretend that everyone who doesn’t own property pays their taxes, there isn’t enough ground in any argument that says the ability to chose the elected leaders who oversee the country’s domestic and foreign policy should be limited to those who are able to afford owning property.

And I’m sure you get an income tax return every year that gives you those taxes you think you paid back.

disenlightened said:
And I’m sure you get an income tax return every year that gives you those taxes you think you paid back.

You’re ignoring my question and are apparently trying to be condescending or are ineptly masking condescension with feigned maturity.

There are a good number of American citizens who are responsible citizens, contrary to your implications that they are leeches feeding on property-owning Americans.

fenngibbon said:
I’m both amused and distressed by the historical ignorance I’m seeing displayed by some. The idea of property qualificiations for voting was the norm in the early days of the republic (actually, pretty much anywhere where there were elections for office), rooted in the perfectly legitimate belief that those who have property are tied to the community and so would be most likely to vote in a manner designed to protect the community in the long term. I’ve heard the same argument raised over whether or not college students should vote in their hometowns or where the colleges are located (I live near a place where elections for the town supervisor have been swayed by college students and the locals get mightily p.o’ed about that, seeing as how the students aren’t year round residents).

The Founders were also motivated by what I believe to be a legitimate concern over what would happen if the propertyless were given the vote: Madison worried either that they might use their voting power to take away the property of others (the ability to democratically steal people’s property was entertainingly documented in P.J. O’Rourke’s Parliament of Whores), or else their votes could be bought off by a demagogue who would promise them relief from their propertyless status (yes, I know: that has NEVER happened).

As for the relation of Phillips’s comments to the Tea Party, I think you can argue that his basic point is one central to the Tea Partiers, namely, the belief that the government is stealing the property of ordinary, hardworking Americans in order to buy the political support of various constituencies to the end of enhancing its power. I don’t think that talking about it in terms of restricting voting to property owners is particularly smart (the mechanism for determining who could vote would have to be fairly complicated and runs against the fetish Americans have for “democracy”), but the concerns motivating such talk are neither stupid nor trivial.

I’m both distressed and amused by the historical ignorance being demonstrated by you… The founders were comfortably landed individuals representative of a minor fraction of the colonial population. Inattention to the worth and value of the native peoples, enslaved Africans, women and laborers resulted in a founding philosophy that extended the glorious virtues of God granted liberty to folks with conspicuous similarities. The idea that access to the form of Republican governance be revised backwards negates hard fought progress won by those excluded by 18th century contempts. The promise of the Declaration resonates within the breast of all independent of gender, race or class.

Moving forward… The idea that the Tea Party opposes political confiscation of privately gotten gains is at odds with the facts. Dedicated blue states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits. Kentucky may have Rand Paul, but they also bleed states like mine (Illinois) and enjoy the benefits of federal relocation of private funds.

Finally, conflating the issue of college voters with the very right to vote is deeply disingenuous. Residency is a debatable issue, disenfranchising an increasingly large and unnaturally disempowered portion of the population is the definition of tyranny.

Stop calling people that want lower taxes degrading names like Tea Baggers…
This is why we have freedom of speech and we are not Iran so people with different views from others can express there likes and dislikes.
Do you guys really want a country were people follow like sheep whoever is in charge… Or we should let the media tell us how we should live?
I do remember a lot of bumper stickers that said “Question Authority” during the Bush years!

I’m getting tired of hearing Obama called a Socialist. Where in the world did you people ever get such a screwed-up idea? I’m a Socialist myself and I feel highly insulted. Obama is a very intelligent, but inexperienced party hack who became president because of the 18 to 30 years old group mainly, but the one thing he is NOT is a Socialist.
I’m 67 years old and I think by this time I do know what a Communist is, what a Socialist is, what a Capitalist is and all of the various shades in-between and believe me there are a lot of them. So PLEASE get your facts straight! Do any of you people even know what you’re talking about when you use the word ‘socialist’? Have you researched it–in something other than right wing books? Most European countries have some form of Socialism and they’re doing quite well. And by the way, there are as many types of socialism as there are colors in the world. Socialism has only one goal and that is to protect the people, to see that everyone has adequate food, housing, medical care and education. To quote an old song (Beatles. I think) , ‘What’s wrong with that? I’d like to know…..’

Leah Ma said:
I’m getting tired of hearing Obama called a Socialist. Where in the world did you people ever get such a screwed-up idea? I’m a Socialist myself and I feel highly insulted. Obama is a very intelligent, but inexperienced party hack who became president because of the 18 to 30 years old group mainly, but the one thing he is NOT is a Socialist.
I’m 67 years old and I think by this time I do know what a Communist is, what a Socialist is, what a Capitalist is and all of the various shades in-between and believe me there are a lot of them. So PLEASE get your facts straight! Do any of you people even know what you’re talking about when you use the word ’socialist’? Have you researched it–in something other than right wing books? Most European countries have some form of Socialism and they’re doing quite well. And by the way, there are as many types of socialism as there are colors in the world. Socialism has only one goal and that is to protect the people, to see that everyone has adequate food, housing, medical care and education. To quote an old song (Beatles. I think) , ‘What’s wrong with that? I’d like to know…..’

socialist

ProgLib said:
What an ass. Why not take this to the next logical step and let those with more property have more votes too?

Why not. They pay more taxes so who ever gets in will impact them more than the average renter who can leave town with 30 days notice.

 Hey,did you hear the one about the guy who has that fuel system that gets 100 MPG but somebody from Exxon bought the rights and it just vanished? Along with the inventor? wooooooooooo…scared yet?