From: Carbon on 7 Feb 2010 12:56 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 7 Feb 2010 13:57 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$Fm7.16451(a)newsfe16.iad>, > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > > > > So now you see just what a stupid idea this is. For a reality check, > > just remember that your proposal is very similar to the system that used > > to hold in Northern Ireland, and we all know what that led to. > > No, now we see how stupid you are. People who don't pay taxes don't have > any skin in the game. They shouldn't get to vote on issues that raise taxes > or increase spending. Again, go read your Northern Ireland history. Then you might not make quite such an idiot of yourself in public.
From: William Clark on 7 Feb 2010 14:00 In article <hCCbn.57153$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 7 Feb 2010 14:00 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 7 Feb 2010 14:59
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. |