From: Carbon on
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:33:33 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2010 16:21:40 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I came across a study recently that argued liberals tend to be more
>>educated and higher functioning than social conservatives. It's possible
>>that a civics literacy test would hurt the Republicans more than the
>>Democrats.
>
> It all depends on who writes the tests.

Whoever wrote them, they wouldn't be able to get away with injecting
obvious bias into them.
From: William Clark on
In article <hJ6dnb8YFrbIaPPWnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>,
"Bobster" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:

> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-B9A309.07575607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <YOrbn.35799$Fm7.16451(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > So now you see just what a stupid idea this is. For a reality check,
> > just remember that your proposal is very similar to the system that used
> > to hold in Northern Ireland, and we all know what that led to.
>
> No, now we see how stupid you are. People who don't pay taxes don't have
> any skin in the game. They shouldn't get to vote on issues that raise taxes
> or increase spending.

Again, go read your Northern Ireland history. Then you might not make
quite such an idiot of yourself in public.
From: William Clark on
In article <hCCbn.57153$s%.49540(a)newsfe18.iad>,
"Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:

> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-6300BD.10213407022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <7kzbn.90050$1m3.87120(a)newsfe11.iad>,
> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> >
> >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:clark-B9A309.07575607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> > In article <YOrbn.35799$Fm7.16451(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
> >> >> message
> >> >> news:clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> >> > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> >> >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.
> >> >> >> > com
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.
> >> >> >> >> com
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegroups
> >> >> >> >> >.co
> >> >> >> >> >m..
> >> >> >> >> >.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama
> >> >> >> >> > > was a
> >> >> >> >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people
> >> >> >> >> > > who
> >> >> >> >> > > can't
> >> >> >> >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a
> >> >> >> >> > > prerequisite
> >> >> >> >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here
> >> >> >> >> > > think
> >> >> >> >> > > about
> >> >> >> >> > > this. Do you defend him?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to
> >> >> >> >> > enact
> >> >> >> >> > socialist
> >> >> >> >> > policies.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or
> >> >> >> >> > write".
> >> >> >> >> > That
> >> >> >> >> > is stupid.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It
> >> >> >> >> > will
> >> >> >> >> > never
> >> >> >> >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact
> >> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> > elections
> >> >> >> >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes
> >> >> >> >> > based
> >> >> >> >> > on
> >> >> >> >> > how
> >> >> >> >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous
> >> >> >> >> > year's
> >> >> >> >> > tax
> >> >> >> >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never
> >> >> >> >> > happen.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you
> >> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> >> > looking
> >> >> >> >> > for.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count
> >> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> >> more
> >> >> >> >> than those cast by people who don't?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> - - -
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in
> >> >> >> >> taxes
> >> >> >> >> since
> >> >> >> >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> use
> >> >> >> >> it.
> >> >> >> >> What is wrong with that?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What do you mean by "weight"?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > - - -
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets
> >> >> >> > one
> >> >> >> > vote.
> >> >> >> > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person
> >> >> >> > pays
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this
> >> >> >> > would
> >> >> >> > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > it.
> >> >> >> > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> income
> >> >> >> taxes you get two votes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK?
> >> >>
> >> >> Buying something suggests that you willingly enter into an agreement.
> >> >> There
> >> >> is no willingness on the part of the taxed. I am suggesting that the
> >> >> people
> >> >> who actually are currently forced to foot the bill for government
> >> >> decide
> >> >> how
> >> >> that government works. What is so hard to understand about that? It
> >> >> used
> >> >> to be that in order to vote you had to be a landowner. Why? Well
> >> >> because
> >> >> it was well understood that the only people that should be deciding
> >> >> our
> >> >> affairs were people that had a stake in the outcome. The further we
> >> >> get
> >> >> away that and the further away we get from the politically astute
> >> >> deciding
> >> >> elections, the more our affairs are determined by idiots.
> >> >
> >> > Your level of taxation is no measure of your contribution. Plenty of
> >> > wealthy people pay far less in tax than many middle class salary
> >> > earners, since they have the means to pay to set up tax shelters and
> >> > other avoidance devices.
> >>
> >> Geez dude. Ok let's try again. In your example, the middle class salary
> >> earner would get MORE votes than the wealthy people since they are paying
> >> MORE in TAXES. That is EXACTLY what my suggestion would do.
> >>
> >> > How about you let people vote by their actual
> >> > contribution to society? Then an inner city teacher who works their
> >> > butt off gets more say than the wastrel son of a billionaire who just
> >> > sits on his rear all day and plays the odd game of polo?
> >>
> >> Letting people vote by their actual "contribution" to society is worse
> >> yet
> >> because then it is up to politicians to decide what is "contribution" and
> >> what isn't. Contribution would be defined as a politicians particular
> >> constituency.
> >>
> >> The son of a billionaire who does nothing gets one vote since he doesn't
> >> pay
> >> income tax. Try to understand the difference between wealth and income
> >> and
> >> taxes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > So now you see just what a stupid idea this is. For a reality check,
> >> > just remember that your proposal is very similar to the system that
> >> > used
> >> > to hold in Northern Ireland, and we all know what that led to.
> >
> > This gets crazier by the moment. You don't suppose there are fifty
> > million ways to avoid paying taxes but making it look like you do?
> > Right.
> >
> > What you end up with in a system like this is a permanently
> > disenfranchised class, who then turn to other (usually violent) means to
> > express their dissatisfaction and frustration with the system. Don't I
> > recall some kind of revolution taking place a couple of hundred years
> > ago on a similar basis? It is what happened in Northern Ireland, and
> > with some justification. I prefer the ballot box as a better means of
> > doing this.
>
> It's called a tax return, William and it is already on file with the federal
> government. So you are worried that people will fill out their tax returns
> claiming they owe more in taxes than they really do because they want more
> power to vote. But that aside, you think that this would lead to MORE
> shenanigans in elections than the current system where they can't even ask
> for identification?

Oh, boy, are we naive. It would not lead to shenanigans, it would lead
to riots. Pure and simple.
>
> And we had a system in America where you had to be a land owner to even vote
> at all and that worked fine. I don't recall that leading to anything
> remarkable.

Did it? Seems to me that got dropped in favor of democracy. You really
wouldn't want to go there again, unless you would like a Londonderry in
your cities.
From: William Clark on
In article <vM6dndD9B7ElaPPWnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>,
"Bobster" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:

> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-6300BD.10213407022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <7kzbn.90050$1m3.87120(a)newsfe11.iad>,
> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This gets crazier by the moment. You don't suppose there are fifty
> > million ways to avoid paying taxes but making it look like you do?
> > Right.
> >
> > What you end up with in a system like this is a permanently
> > disenfranchised class, who then turn to other (usually violent) means to
> > express their dissatisfaction and frustration with the system. Don't I
> > recall some kind of revolution taking place a couple of hundred years
> > ago on a similar basis? It is what happened in Northern Ireland, and
> > with some justification. I prefer the ballot box as a better means of
> > doing this.
>
> You don't think taxpayers are going to rise up someday? Lock and load!

Go for it - it can only improve the gene pool.
From: John B. on
On Feb 7, 10:27 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <5766a505-e9d9-4800-9aa3-a020f2f56916
> @f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says...
>
> > I'm simply trying to determine whether Tancredo's comments represent
> > mainstream conservative thought. How is that a trap?
>
> You did set a trap and you know it.
>
> If you were genuinely interested in how widespread the view was held you
> would not have localized the question to just Republicans.
>
> Try answering this question John: Do Democrats enjoy beating their wives
> and children?

I already expanded my sample to include conservatives, libertarians,
and people who voted for McCain.