posted
I'd be OK with that as long as the people that are relieved of representation are also relieved of the burden of taxation Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tough. As long as the laws affect all citizens, all citizens need to be able to vote on them.
Not so. Currently, we have many citizens who are not allowed to vote - those in prison, and those under the age of 18 come to mind.
As for "no taxation without representation", two points. First, there are those that are taxed without being able to vote (see above). Second, the average of 700,000 to 1 ratio between populace and representatives in the House (the most representative of our governing bodies... Senate seats average a 3 million to 1 ratio) makes the idea of true representation laughable.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but the former is a problem that can theoretically be handled. Allow prisoners to vote like many other countries in the world and permit those under 18 to not pay taxes (which essentially is the case anyways after you factor in services and tax credits).
The latter is a problem that isn't one that should be exacerbated. There are already groups that are chronically under-represented in your government and allowing that same government to determine which professions are exempt from "service" and which types of "service" are qualified to permit one to vote is potentially nightmarish.
I figure that that allowing those that are barred from voting the choice of not paying taxes a potentially good check and/or balance to the power of being able determine who can or cannot vote.
That way the government cannot arbitrary restrict or promote some forms of "service" without the possibility of alienating its very tax base.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
yeah. They were pretty bad requirements. Why should you have to own property in order to vote? People who rent are still citizens. Why should women not be able to vote? etc.
This is exactly why we can't get there from here. We have the sense that just by virtue of being a citizen, you should get to vote. You take that away, there will be hell to pay, and it's hard to imagine any situation where the general public would voluntarily choose, through their votes, to deprive themselves of the right to vote.
But if you were starting from scratch, the question might not be "why should only X group get to vote?", but "What would be the effect of having only group X get to vote?"
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:permit those under 18 to not pay taxes (which essentially is the case anyways after you factor in services and tax credits)
This is impossible.
Unless you plan to find a way to have minors not pay sales tax, gas tax, etc, etc. Income tax is not the only form of tax in this country, after all.
And, if that were the case, would adults who buy things for minors (diapers, food, etc) not have to pay taxes on them? Or would they just give the money to the minors to get it tax free?
People can be citizens and make not one penny of income inside the United States, yet still pay a lot in taxes.
The line is "no taxation without representation" not "no income taxation without representation". The founding fathers were ticked about taxes on stamps and tea, not on taxation of their income.
So, all people who purchase things in this country are taxed - would that mean they all deserve representation?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Unless you plan to find a way to have minors not pay sales tax, gas tax, etc, etc. Income tax is not the only form of tax in this country, after all.
We essentially have that in Canada, just for a different group. If your income is below a certain amount we have a sales tax credit that approximates and refunds about the amount that you would have paid. Its an estimate but its designed to relieve a certain group of having to pay sales tax.
That way you don't have to deal with issues such as others giving money to this group to buy stuff.
quote: So, all people who purchase things in this country are taxed - would that mean they all deserve representation?
Yes. Aside from tourists from another country (which at least in Canada get a refund based on receipts when they leave anyways), I think that they should.
Edit to add: Of course, tourists wouldn't be citizens anyways and thus wouldn't be eligible to vote regardless. So I guess I should amend that to all citizens who purchase things and are taxed on it deserve representation. (And thats not an iff either (i.e. no taxes !=> no vote either))
posted
If the unemployed are not allowed to vote, then that creates motivation to limit employment. The more unemployed, the greater your own vote.
If the uneducated, or those not sufficiently educated in the civic arts are not allowed to vote, then that creates a motivation to limit education of the masses. That way those going to private, special schools can pass the tests and be allowed to vote.
If those who can not pass a language test are not allowed to vote, this creates a motivation to limit language arts to the preferred.
Basically it seems that there is a sour grapes backlash by those who lost the last election.
"Its not fair. A bunch of people voted and voted not the way we wanted them to. They voted for things that they liked, things that helped them and not us. That is not fair. Instead of trying to work hard and get them to vote for us, or educate them about how our plans are the best, why don't we just stop letting them vote."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Mucus, what do you think about illegal aliens that are working in the country and paying taxes (sales, property, etc)? Or those on green cards that are in the country legally for extended periods of time and paying taxes?
How about citizens that are living overseas and pay no taxes at all inside the US - do they not deserve a vote because they are not taxed?
Personally, I don't think that "I am taxed, therefore I should have a vote" sits well with me... especially since it can very easily be extrapolated to "I am taxed more, therefore I should have more vote".
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So, Mucus, what do you think about illegal aliens that are working in the country and paying taxes (sales, property, etc)? Or those on green cards that are in the country legally for extended periods of time and paying taxes?
Personally, I think both should be allowed to vote. Especially in the first case, the current system where they pay taxes and support the American way of life via construction, agriculture, cleaning etc. does seem exploitative and they should have a say.
quote: How about citizens that are living overseas and pay no taxes at all inside the US - do they not deserve a vote because they are not taxed?
I already answered all of this. Its "no taxation without representation" not "taxation if and only if representation." The former only sets down a bare minimum, all those that are taxed should have a say in government. Any attempt to cross that gap and tax people without giving them representation should be abhorrent but it doesn't mean thats the only group that should be allowed to vote either.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Of course you are. It's right in your first post: you are at least uncertain whether or not people should vote for Democrats if they're receiving any sort of government assistance.
Should cops be allowed to vote?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus... interesting your stance on illegal immigrants and voting. How would this be tracked?
How might one be able to tell who are actual illegal immigrants living and working in the United States, and who are merely transient visitors to the US?
Also, what about those who live in border towns in Canada and Mexico who regularly cross the border to shop/visit friends/etc. and pay US taxes? Should these also be allowed to vote?
Again, doesn't sit well with me.
I am okay with the concept of "those who are of legal adult status who have not broken the social contract" being allowed to vote. That would be legal citizens, 18 or older, who are not in prison. (Though I am open to negotiation on what age "adult status" is granted)
I am also interested in the concept of service to the community, simply because I feel voting should be held in higher esteem than it currently is. If something is free, it is taken more for granted. If something requires effort, it is more valued.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: "Its not fair. A bunch of people voted and voted not the way we wanted them to. They voted for things that they liked, things that helped them and not us. That is not fair. Instead of trying to work hard and get them to vote for us, or educate them about how our plans are the best, why don't we just stop letting them vote."
QFT.
I think this applies to both sides of the aisle for sure, but I've been seeing it in much, much sharper relief from the republican side. Democrats tend to talk a lot of semi-marxist conspiracy nonsense about how (in the worst case scenario) either Bush planned 9/11, or the feds are listening to all your phone calls individually and spying on you (or some other piece of trivia, like it taking a spork 10,000 years to decompose...).
I mean, does anyone remember as far back as 2003, when public dissent over the war and new foreign policy led Rice to say over and over, not "we should listen to the American people, and find out what they think is best" but rather "we should do a better job of convincing the American people of what we think is best." Governments do have to do that, but Republicans seem to take it as written, that what you have to do is "know the answer," and then proceed in a straight line towards your goal with as little visible deviation as possible in order to avoid embarrassment or argument.
And in their outlook, this means that any hiccup or expected deviation on the part of their political opponents is read as incompetence rather than what it is equally likely to be: competence. It does tell you something rather profound about that outlook, when Obama's approval rating going from 63% to 62% (inside the standard deviation) is characterized as a "slide." It makes you wonder what republicans were *really* thinking and how secure they really were when Bush's approval rating dropped steadily from a record high to a record low.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: How might one be able to tell who are actual illegal immigrants living and working in the United States, and who are merely transient visitors to the US?
I'm thinking that they could just register at the polls with something similar to what we do in Canada. link
Basically, we require two forms of ID, one with a picture and one that forms some kind of connection with an area. At a glance, there are a fair number of combinations that could be obtained by an illegal immigrant, say library card + utility bill or employee card + educational transcript.
That should sort out illegal immigrants that have stayed a while from transient visitors. I may also add even though Canada has such a liberal policy on how to register to vote there is relatively little voter fraud. I just don't think this kind of problem would really be all that significant.
quote: Also, what about those who live in border towns in Canada and Mexico who regularly cross the border to shop/visit friends/etc. and pay US taxes?
As I noted before, IIRC, visitors that do cross-border shopping can get a tax refund if they present their receipts at the border.
quote: I am also interested in the concept of service to the community, simply because I feel voting should be held in higher esteem than it currently is.
I agree and I believe that such an attitude/wish is admirable.
However, I also believe that there are always unintended consequences when taking away the vote from certain groups. The governmental power to take away the vote from certain groups that do not wish to perform "service" and the power to define what that "service" is should be countered by some equal check and/or balance.
The loss of tax revenue is my first guess at what such a counter-balance could be and would provide at least *some* motivation for one party to not systematically disenfranchise large sections of the population which may be undesirable to them.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I started this post it wasn't my intention to put forth the items as suggesttions, that is why I listed them as "qualifiers/disqualifiers"....To be honest, I was concerned with the outcome of the election. Not so much for the elected but how easilly the people can be manipulated with a promise and a smile. My own mother, a previous pro-life marcher told me she would've voted for Hillary. This only on the basis of sex. Pointing out one's "interest" or "self interest" is a mute point. Clinton is completely opposed to the views and interests of my mother yet she would've voted for her on the basis of sex. I see which side of the aisle cultivates and uses racism, sexism, sexual orientation, income level and on and on. Swap the "Jew" with "rich" and we'd be in 1930's Germany or "communist" with "executive" and we'd be in the 1950's McCarthy era. No one can deny the hilarity of the man on the street interviews with Obama supporters agreeing with McCain proposals. I am a person who is apt to fall for republican lies and there are those who are susceptible to democrat lies. We are a people of short term memory, we'll be reminded of Democrat lies and swing back to a Republican administration, and so the pendulum swings. Our short term outrage is used to manipulate us into agreeing with things. The mob is being manipulated. The 90% tax proposal on bonus money for example, it doesn't only apply to AIG, it applies to recipients of bailout money. The tentacles and strings are permeating society. Conveniently, the $250k limit is there, recieved bailout money and get a bonus you'll pay 90%. They discuss the sum of bonus money but many people received regular bonuses but we have a new tax that will never go away. We all recieved bailout money in one form or another, the state, the corporations or small businesses. "Don't let a good crisis go to waste"...Pelosi, Geitner.
posted
There is also the matter of scale, in that there are approximately 11,000,000 illegal immigrants in the US, and approximately 200,000 in Canada.
Beyond this, I don't think I agree with illegal immigrants having the right to vote, regardless. If someone wants to vote, they should go through the process of becoming a citizen. If they don't want to be a citizen, they shouldn't have a say in the governance of the country/community.
In a larger view, "who" gets to vote is the least of our problems. Our governmenal system as far deeper problems.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Pelosi last week in SF, Illegal immigrants (sorry, undocumented workers) are the true "patriots" and INS in "unamerican" for rounding them up.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I started this post it wasn't my intention to put forth the items as suggesttions, that is why I listed them as "qualifiers/disqualifiers"...
Well, I'll take you at your word, but the things on your list as well as subsequent posts don't really point to your motives as apolitical as you claim.
quote:My own mother, a previous pro-life marcher told me she would've voted for Hillary. This only on the basis of sex.
What you don't seem to understand is two things. First of all, you don't get to decide what is a trivial or irrelevant thing for people to base their vote on. Well, you do, but ironically only if you can convince a bunch of people to agree with you. The second thing is that you don't seem to understand that a woman getting to vote for a woman for President isn't a trivial or irrelevant thing.
I'm going to make a guess that I suspect many people are thinking right now: I suspect you're a white American male of voting age. Correct me if I'm wrong - or don't respond at all, it's not really my business - but I'm one too, and even I can understand the appeal of voting for someone who for a change is actually from something resembling my demographic.
quote: I see which side of the aisle cultivates and uses racism, sexism, sexual orientation, income level and on and on.
Both sides do. What, you don't believe that?
quote:Swap the "Jew" with "rich" and we'd be in 1930's Germany or "communist" with "executive" and we'd be in the 1950's McCarthy era.
That's a gross and possibly even odious exaggeration.
quote:According to Pelosi last week in SF, Illegal immigrants (sorry, undocumented workers) are the true "patriots" and INS in "unamerican" for rounding them up.
If she said that, and that's all she said absent context, then she was indeed stupid to say so. But I doubt it. And I don't like Pelosi at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't want to take away my own mother's right to vote. I'm simply pointing out the shallowness of many Americans and how easilly manipulated they are. Disregarding one's core belief system for the trivial: gender, race, sexual orientation is saddening to me. The True racist, sexist bigot votes because of those reasons alone. I would happilly vote for a fiscally conservative, small government homosexual black woman. What someone does in the bedroom, what color their skin is or what they carry between their legs does not matter to me. I am not at all sexist, racist or homophobic, nor do I play into class envy. I am a small government conservative whow is German, French, Ojibwe with some African American thrown in for good measure. The "true" racist would look at me and see a White guy. And if there were a small government, fiscally conservative homosexual black woman, she would be branded uncle tom and demonized. Conoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell.....oh sorry. Colin Powell shed his uncle Tom label after endorsing Obama. I'm sure for reasons other than race.
Of course both sides play the same game..hence my admition that I fall for Republican lies and the pendulum swinging comment.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: According to Pelosi last week in SF, Illegal immigrants (sorry, undocumented workers) are the true "patriots" and INS in "unamerican" for rounding them up.
Somehow, I imagine that even with my dislike of Pelosi, if you showed us the context of that quote it will turn out that she didn't say that at all.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: There is also the matter of scale, in that there are approximately 11,000,000 illegal immigrants in the US, and approximately 200,000 in Canada.
This is true, but its also a situation that I do not think should be maintained indefinitely and I think that allowing illegal immigrants to vote would gradually help to resolve the situation either by: 1) Changing American immigration policy to a more liberal approach that really does take into account how many immigrants are needed to support certain industries or 2) Forcing Americans to make a real choice as to whether to deport the illegal immigrants
But the current situation seems to encourage keeping these people in sort of a legal limbo and enriches people such as those that aid in the illegal immigration process or those that rely upon illegal immigrant labour (penalizing those that refuse to do so)
quote:If someone wants to vote, they should go through the process of becoming a citizen. If they don't want to be a citizen, they shouldn't have a say in the governance of the country/community.
I suspect that most illegal immigrants aren't in that position because they have some theoretical objection to becoming a citizen but because the legal immigration process is too restrictive.
Even legally, I know a fair number of H1B visa holders that wish to become citizens but cannot due to silly immigration policies.
quote: In a larger view, "who" gets to vote is the least of our problems. Our governmental system as far deeper problems.
"the raids must end"... "kicking in doors and taking mothers and fathers is unamerican" "you are patriotic"
Our politicians are pandering to the illegal immigrants because of the potential energy of their vote. Their children will be voters, their decendents will be the largest voting block soon. The party that enforces current law will be known as the anti-immigrant party and lose future elections.
Immigration policy should be restrictive. New members of our society should be free of disease, have clean criminal backgrounds and contribute economically to our society. When my son had his two year checkup, the doctor asked if he had been in nursing homes or exposed to illegal immigrants. Questions to screen for exposure to TB, etc. He didn't like my answer, "We shop at Wal-Mart". Doctors are aware of the health risks involved with unscreaned immigration. Diseases we had licked that are prevalent in South America are resurging here. Meningitis, Drug Resistant TB, even Chagis Disease. A disease spread by insects not found in most of America. Ignore the law, ignore the health consequences, ignore the expense for incarceration, welfare, education and medical care. How has it become unamerican and racist to support the enforcement of current law?
quote:Our politicians are pandering to the illegal immigrants because of the potential energy of their vote. Their children will be voters, their decendents will be the largest voting block soon. The party that enforces current law will be known as the anti-immigrant party and lose future elections.
It couldn't possibly be at least in part because of genuine ideological differences with your point of view? It has to be a cold-blooded calculating grab for future power?
This is why your implied objectivity and being 'above it all' comes off as being a big pile of crap. I for one am shocked, shocked I say that you'd source newsmax:)
For example, something you're completely not mentioning is that the context of her speech is the recent allegations of ICE...ineptitude, shall we say, in detaining people for deportation. Or that she was also speaking of taking illegal immigrant parents away from their natural-born American citizen children.
And, you know what, I agree with her on both counts. I guess I've been bought off by the Democratic party *rolleyes*
quote: New members of our society should be free of disease, have clean criminal backgrounds and contribute economically to our society.
I'm right there with you on the first two, but you know what, your third item is just plain stupid. I'm using such harsh language because it's an argument that gets brought up over and over again, as though illegals were skulking across the border just to line up at the welfare office.
posted
You can find the video anywhere. I suppose Newsmax created a CGI Pelosi. The only ineptitude I see is more illegals aren't detained and deported. True, they are pitiful at doing their job. My coldblooded perspective is that we should eliminate the born here and automatically a citizen policy. I spent a great deal of time in the military around the world, being born in other countries does not automatically make you a citizen. Other nations enforce immigration policy. There are many hard working illegals, true. Eleven percent of California's prisons are illegals. They aren't necessarilly lining up at the welfare office but they get free lunch and breakfast at our public schools and use emergency rooms as primary care providers. All I really need to mention as an example of ineptitude and the future of this nation is to put forth California as the pilot program for consolidated liberal political power. That is the future of America, good luck finding someone who wants that. Maybe we should investigate regions and states correlating political power with crime, poverty, unemployment and political corruption. Chicago, Detroit, Michigan, California, DC whatever. Michigan, Oregon, California and DC have the highest unemployment rates in the nation...what do they have in common? The lowest unemployment rates go to Wyoming and North Dakota....what do they have in common? Highest Crime rates....DC, Detroit and Chicago. Lowest graduation rates....Detroit, Chicago. Lets follow Pelosi's and the rest of the D's lead and the entire country will go down the California, Michigan and Illinois path. The leader of hope and change represented the worst area in America. It bounces between Detroit and Chicago's south side for lowest graduation rate, highest murder rate and crime. Oh the 13th district of Illinois had a lot of Hope but the only Change they got was a politician who used them as a stepping stone to higher political power.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty much the last person who you can expect to contribute anything worthwhile to a discussion of politics, but even I can see that making it so that only a certain type of citizen can vote defeats the purpose of democracy.
For instance, if you can't vote unless you've finished high school, what does that say? If you don't have a diploma you don't count as being part of society? You don't deserve to have your interests represented? Why not just go back to the days when only white male land-owners could vote?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My coldblooded perspective is that we should eliminate the born here and automatically a citizen policy. I spent a great deal of time in the military around the world, being born in other countries does not automatically make you a citizen. Other nations enforce immigration policy.
1. Who gives a sh@% what they do in other countries? That's a stupid argument...unless you think it's a persuasive argument to abolishing the death penalty, too?
2. Few if any other countries have both the demand for and the draw towards illegal immigrations we do. Therefore it's incomplete at best to say, "They enforce."
quote:There are many hard working illegals, true. Eleven percent of California's prisons are illegals. They aren't necessarilly lining up at the welfare office but they get free lunch and breakfast at our public schools and use emergency rooms as primary care providers.
Geepers, might this have something to do with a) illegal immigrants being much poorer than other segments of society, and b) being easier to catch than US citizens?
As for the second part of your anti-immigrant (sorry, anti-illegal *rolleyes*) spiel here, they get that because they're citizens. They should always get that. I'm immensely proud of our country for granting citizenship to those who are born here. As for emergency room care...yeah, they just get here and dial 911 immediately and then wait, right?
quote: Chicago, Detroit, Michigan, California, DC whatever. Michigan, Oregon, California and DC have the highest unemployment rates in the nation...what do they have in common?
There's a statistic by state for you, malanthrop. Are you willing to eschew this line of argument now?
I'm beginning to think you're simply not worth talking to about this political issue. Your arguments might as well come from Rush Limbaugh's rants, and you're not answering some direct statements made in argument against your points.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't discussing intelligence, however your statistic was generated from your obscure website. Here's a link to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, US government data for your edification. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t01.htm Heres one from the Right Wing bastion...NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11601692 Maybe Detroit will break the 25% graduation rate this year and it's a good thing our federal govt is going to take tax payer money from good, successful conservative states and bailout the bankrupt govt's of California and Michigan.
I'm discussing unemployment, graduation rates and crime.
I'm sure Massachusetes, Vermont, etc are quite smart. The most extreme examples of classes are found with liberals. You have your very educated, elitist northeastern democrats and you have your inner-city 25% graduation rate, living in crime and poverty democrats. This kind of disparity isn't as prevalent with conservatives. Make fun of the dumb redneck if you like, he has a job and works hard. There are liberal elites and liberal victims. The problem is, they haven't realized who is really victimizing them.
Fugu...I didn't correlate those areas in the sense of the high black population, rather the Democratic control of the govt.
You seem to hold European standards in such high esteem in other areas, socialized health care, capital punishment, etc. Lets be consistent. Since four Democratically controlled states have surpassed the 10% unemployment rate we should embrace European policies. Why not, 10% unemploment is fairly standard for France but at least they have socialized healthcare and a 35 hour work week.
quote:Maybe Detroit will break the 25% graduation rate this year and it's a good thing our federal govt is going to take tax payer money from good, successful conservative states and bailout the bankrupt govt's of California and Michigan
Actually it's conservative states that tend to get more back from the federal government than their citizens pay in federal taxes. I'll have to re-check the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that California has been a profit center for the federal government for many years.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course California has been a profit center, it has a high population of tax payers. The problem is, high state taxes are driving out the high earning tax payers. They never learn. If the administration announced a six month halt on the capital gains tax and decreased income taxes, this economy and the stock market would jump immediately. Of course that would only put more money in the hands of the evil, greedy rich people who aren't paying their fair share and it would prove voodoo economics really works. They are not interested in really helping the economy. "Never let a crisis go to waste" Pelosi, Geitner. The have a chance to instutute social policy. Even prior to his health care agenda, the Congressional Budget Office determined his spending to be "unsustainable".
"The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates."
I wouldn't be suprised if Montana had a high influx per capita of federal dollars, lots of federal highways that are in the best interest of the nation, not just locals. Strange which governors are telling the fed to keep the bailout money. Waiting for one with D next to his/her name.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates
OK, that's people. You made a statement about "high earning tax payers" though. Can you show that high-earners are disproportionately represented in those numbers?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You didn't respond with graduation rate statistics. You responded with some unsubstantiated and ill defined measure of intelligence. The #1 and #2 factors for consideration in your study are spending on schools and school revenue. Typical, the more money you throw at it, the better it must be, right? I sent you a government site that will spell out actual facts.
"The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period — more than any other state, according to census estimates."
Duh. It was overcast for the 2008 Rose Parade.
(Also, real estate prices were still obscenely high, as were gas prices and rents. But why look at this logically?)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
High unemployment rate leads to reduced govt revenue so they decide to raise taxes. I'm sure the tax increase will bring back the jobs and stimulate growth.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
But at the end of the day, they'll still be Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Georgia, and still won't be decent places to live. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop: but why didn't you? If your arguments were at all persuasive about immigration, they would be at least as persuasive about black people.
Of course, they aren't persuasive in the first place. They are racist claptrap. I'm not going to bother going through all of them, but if you would like any particular one of your arguments torn to shreds, please quote it from an earlier post and I will do so.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The most extreme examples of classes are found with liberals. You have your very educated, elitist northeastern democrats and you have your inner-city 25% graduation rate, living in crime and poverty democrats. This kind of disparity isn't as prevalent with conservatives. Make fun of the dumb redneck if you like, he has a job and works hard. There are liberal elites and liberal victims. The problem is, they haven't realized who is really victimizing them.
Are you for real? This entire arguments is based on the worst type of stereotyping. You're using generalizations and exaggerations I'll even grant you that there are cultural differences between urban and rural poor (I've had personal experience with both types) but in both cases you find examples of laziness and stupidness and in both cases you find examples of hardworking folks trying to make the best of a bad situation.
If you'd like to have a discussion about who tends to be a democrat and who tends to be a republican, we could do that. There are plenty of statistics available out there on current and historical trends. But when you bring that kind of thing into a conversation about who should have the right to vote, it just adds weight to the idea that you want to disenfranchise people who disagree with you.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point of this was to make people think about why they vote and to explore shallowness of the American voter. I love my mother an used her as an example of someone who would go against everything she believes in just to vote for a woman. I didn't specify if the items listed were either qualifiers or disqualifiers. I just knew this would lead a lot of different directions.
Fugu, you brought up black people. I'm not suprised really, liberals categorize everone into tidy little demographic groups. I see a man where you'll see a black man. But resort to your typical liberal tactic? If you disagree with a liberal you are a racist, sexist homophobe. Liberals can't see past the orientation, sex or race to the person. If you disagree with a persons opinion or viewpoint the liberal percieves your dissagreement to be with the only thing they are aware of, the skin, sex, etc. I do not believe in affirmative action....this makes me a racist right? I believe that our immigration laws should be enforced...I suppose I hate Mexican people. I am pro life....this makes me a sexist, correct? True, most conservatives are afraid of your accusations and they have proven an effective way to snuff out logical debate. I'm suprised you'd stoop to that so easilly. You don't like me suggesting where liberals have power the economies suffer, crime is higher and education is poorer, prove me wrong. I'm multiratial but I suppose having a diverse background is negated by my conservative ideals. I must be a sellout. Not really because if you looked at me you'd only see a white guy.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You want considerably more than immigration laws being enforced -- you've suggested people born here should not automatically be citizens (which would require the Constitution be amended, btw). That's a quite drastic change. I'll assume you overlooked that instead of lying about what you wanted intentionally.
I guess you don't feel any of your arguments about immigration can stand up to scrutiny. My offer remains open.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Feel free to go through the whole two pages and comment. Suggesting a constitutional change is discriminatory? I suppose you believe the constitutional ammendment in California was discriminatory? I made a comparison to European national laws since you hold them in such high regard in other areas, capital punishment and socialized medicine. Be consistent. You pick and choose the examples you like, pick and choose the laws you like or the parts of the constitution you prefer.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
and it's a good thing our federal govt is going to take tax payer money from good, successful conservative states and bailout the bankrupt govt's of California and Michigan.
