User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 12:37:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see.... some particularly brilliant Constitutional Scholar wrote yesterday: People want to restrict voting to people who are tax payers, not tax consumers. weeeelllllll... That is the Poll Tax . So all you have to do is subvert the Constitution (24th amendment) and you're GTG. http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/1638315_o.gif  You're right, better that we do nothing until we have to shoot them all. It only ends two ways. Someone tried to dickslap me with his well used pocket constitution in yesterday's thread. I had to take the shot. http://www.tensionnot.com/pictures/images/Cat/Boom-Headshot-Cat.jpg So the constitution is good only when convenient? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 12:45:50 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wasted effort! Even if you could get this to pass, all it would take is mandating everyone pay at least $1.00. Then all is for nothing. If someone even proposes that there must be a minimum fee of $x.xx then I would be totally against it. Since currently I am no milionare and at some point the gov could keep raising said min tax to eliminate otherwise honest informed albiet poor voters. Now there is some merit in on property owners being able to vote, and throughout time that has been considered if not in effect at various times. The property idea doesn't do much good idea. I've been living in apartments for the past 10 years. I'm a productive citizen who pays taxes, etc and will definitely be impacted by the government's actions, but I suddenly don't get any say in how my taxes dollars are spent? Heck, my family has been in this country for 300 years, but because I don't own a piece of dirt, I must not have any skin in the game. It's a silly rural vs urban populist idea. You're denying the neurosurgeon who lives in an apartment in New York the right to vote while granting it to Cletus the Kentucky yokel, based on an arbitrary criteria. I will say that the property idea would make me some money. My first action would be to find the cheapest, most worthless piece of property in the country, buy as much of it as I could afford, then start selling out 1/1000th acre plots to everyone who wanted to vote. I honestly agree with you, I purely mentioned the property Idea more for the sake of arguement more than anything else. The system the way it is, really is best (for the most part). I would be in favor of some of the ID laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 12:51:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Billionares and greedy CEO's will never give up their right to vote.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 1:35:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see.... some particularly brilliant Constitutional Scholar wrote yesterday: People want to restrict voting to people who are tax payers, not tax consumers. weeeelllllll... That is the Poll Tax . So all you have to do is subvert the Constitution (24th amendment) and you're GTG. http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/1638315_o.gif You're right, better that we do nothing until we have to shoot them all. It only ends two ways. Someone tried to dickslap me with his well used pocket constitution in yesterday's thread. I had to take the shot. http://www.tensionnot.com/pictures/images/Cat/Boom-Headshot-Cat.jpg So the constitution is good only when convenient? You have failed to read for comprehension. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 1:41:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see.... some particularly brilliant Constitutional Scholar wrote yesterday: People want to restrict voting to people who are tax payers, not tax consumers. weeeelllllll... That is the Poll Tax . So all you have to do is subvert the Constitution (24th amendment) and you're GTG. http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/1638315_o.gif You're right, better that we do nothing until we have to shoot them all. It only ends two ways. Someone tried to dickslap me with his well used pocket constitution in yesterday's thread. I had to take the shot. http://www.tensionnot.com/pictures/images/Cat/Boom-Headshot-Cat.jpg I believe we were talking about the enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Government under the Constitution at that point. NOT about any specific provisions about voting rights. My primary argument in THAT thread was that the Republic functioned just fine before women, blacks etc....were allowed to vote- which is true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 1:55:20 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Billionares and greedy CEO's will never give up their right to vote. I'm not a billionaire or greedy CEO but I'd be happy to give up my right to vote in exchange for not paying federal taxes. Just the federal... (Darn it, not Puerto Rican  )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 1:59:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Yeah! Fuck that disabled veteran! Sitting there on his ass, well most of it, not paying any taxes. That asshole shouldn't get to vote.
(VA disability is not taxable) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 2:21:35 PM EDT
[#8]
How about a law that says if try to or talk about limit peoples constutitional rights you don't get to vote
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 2:25:37 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
[red]Yeah! Fuck that disabled veteran! Sitting there on his ass, well most of it, not paying any taxes. That asshole shouldn't get to vote.[/red ](VA disability is not taxable) Yeah it takes a real JACKASS to want to do something like that |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 3:46:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
How about a law that says if try to or talk about limit peoples constutitional rights you don't get to vote Take it up with the Founders. The ticky tack horseshit system we have now was NEVER intended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 4:15:08 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
I believe we were talking about the enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Government under the Constitution at that point. NOT about any specific provisions about voting rights. My primary argument in THAT thread was that the Republic functioned just fine before women, blacks etc....were allowed to vote- which is true. I thought you were arguing that there is no constitutional right to vote and that therefore it was constitutionally acceptable to institute a poll tax to weed out the parasites. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 4:38:08 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Neither was a standing army.Quoted: How about a law that says if try to or talk about limit peoples constutitional rights you don't get to vote Take it up with the Founders. The ticky tack horseshit system we have now was NEVER intended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2012 5:06:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about a law that says if try to or talk about limit peoples constutitional rights you don't get to vote Take it up with the Founders. The ticky tack horseshit system we have now was NEVER intended. No it wasn't but it was included in the bill of rights in a manner as set out in the constutition. As a Son, Grandson and Nephew of Disable vets I am greatly offended by someone who wants to take away their right to vote because they may or may not pay federal taxes after they have served their country. That is a pinko commie scum move that should offend every vet and every member of a vets family. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2012 12:52:15 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about a law that says if try to or talk about limit peoples constutitional rights you don't get to vote Take it up with the Founders. The ticky tack horseshit system we have now was NEVER intended. No it wasn't but it was included in the bill of rights in a manner as set out in the constutition. As a Son, Grandson and Nephew of Disable vets I am greatly offended by someone who wants to take away their right to vote because they may or may not pay federal taxes after they have served their country. That is a pinko commie scum move that should offend every vet and every member of a vets family. Um.... you need to go look at what the hell the Constitution and Bill of Rights said when they were drafted..... Here is a hint: there were only 10 Amendments. And number 10 is the one you need to concentrate on..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2012 4:16:06 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe we were talking about the enumerated responsibilities of the Federal Government under the Constitution at that point. NOT about any specific provisions about voting rights. My primary argument in THAT thread was that the Republic functioned just fine before women, blacks etc....were allowed to vote- which is true. I thought you were arguing that there is no constitutional right to vote and that therefore it was constitutionally acceptable to institute a poll tax to weed out the parasites. No. That was someone else. My argument was that when the franchise was expanded a variable was introduced into the system that the Founders NEVER considered in setting it up. We altered the system without thinking it through and adding appropriate safeguards to account for the new variable. They had in mind a VERY SPECIFIC type of voter when they designed the system- ALL OF THEM. They may have differed on the exact details but in general it was something that was widely agreed upon- moral, men of substance. They abhorred the idea of democracy- take a look at what Franklin said- " A Republic IF you can keep it" and I can go on and on.....our nation and system of government was never intended to have an open franchise. We have a Corvette system that we're attempting to run on e85 and we wonder "Why don't it work?" "Why are our kids dumber the more we spend to educate them? Why are our politicians crooked? Why are we spending so much on welfare? Why is our defense money wasted?" etc.... No shit.....when you put CRAP in the system you get CRAP for results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2012 4:16:20 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Neither was a standing army.
Quoted:
How about a law that says if try to or talk about limit peoples constutitional rights you don't get to vote Take it up with the Founders. The ticky tack horseshit system we have now was NEVER intended. Indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2012 4:17:30 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about a law that says if try to or talk about limit peoples constutitional rights you don't get to vote Take it up with the Founders. The ticky tack horseshit system we have now was NEVER intended. No it wasn't but it was included in the bill of rights in a manner as set out in the constutition. As a Son, Grandson and Nephew of Disable vets I am greatly offended by someone who wants to take away their right to vote because they may or may not pay federal taxes after they have served their country. That is a pinko commie scum move that should offend every vet and every member of a vets family. I don't believe I ever said that. If you can point out where I did I will disavow it but I think you are going to be looking for a long time and finding NOTHING of the sort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2012 7:29:19 AM EDT
[#18]
At one time you couldn't vote unless you owned property.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
