From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

[Dr.Who]

Here Here!! That sounds like a great idea. That is how it is in business. The owners have the say so because they take the risks, they bear the burden.

Why should it be different in the political arean? Those who don't pay anything aren't taking risks, they are just collecting from those that work hard and make things happen.

It should not be that way because it is just not an accurate portrayal of how things are. Yes, the taxpayers are the ones who's money is being used correctly or incorrectly. But income tax and property tax are not the only taxes. There are also sales taxes and anyone who buys anything or has anything is paying taxes. Also the role of legislators is not limited to making laws about how to spend money. They also make laws about the rights and duties of every citizen in the country regardless of how much or how little they pay in taxes. A law that says you can or cannot abuse your children needs to apply to all even if they are not paying taxes. And if one is to be under the control of the law then one should have a say in how it is made.

But fairness is a simple concept for all to understand except liberals when they want progressive taxes and apparently conservatives when they are fed up with the abuses of taxation. Fairness demands that everyone have just one vote, no more and no less, that everyone get to talk to their representatives and be heard with equal weight, that everyone pay an equal percent of their income taxes or an equal percent of the tax on their purchases, and that everyone gets an equal opportunity to benefit from the fruits of civilization. It also demands that the gov cannot raise or lower ones income tax because one has or has not paid more in sales tax, or because one has or has not voted, because one has or has not benefited from the fruits of civilization. Each of the items listed in that bolded sentence is independent of the others and it is unfair to change one based on the results of another.

If we find that one person is voting more than another the solution is not to raise their taxes but to prosecute them. If we find that one person is being heard more than another by their representative the solution is to censure the representative not to raise taxes on the citizen. If we find that one person is paying a higher rate than another in income taxes the solution is to adjust the rates so they are fair not to make them less fair, if we find that one person is benefiting more from the fruits of society than another through some injustice then the solution is to correct the injustice not to create a second wrong (progressive taxes) in a lame attempt to adjust for the first one.

 

[chestnut]

My view may have been a bit harsh, however, I still feel we have a problem in this country. Too many people, who really, don't give a rats ass about this country or what it stands for, or, for that matter, understand what or why they are voting for their candidate, still get the right to vote!

They are the folks who don't know how to find the information they need to make a logical decision. They simply listen to the MSM mostly because that's all they have access to.. which is what the media wants... and make a decision.

Even when asked if they care about one's character or track record, they admit they don't. It's not right.

Everyone should have the right to vote, only if they are informed and have the mental capacity to understand the implications of their vote.

Surely you can agree, this is a problem.

And groups like ACORN don't make it any easier either.

 

[Dr.Who]

My view may have been a bit harsh, however, I still feel we have a problem in this country. Too many people, who really, don't give a rats ass about this country or what it stands for, or, for that matter, understand what or why they are voting for their candidate, still get the right to vote!

They are the folks who don't know how to find the information they need to make a logical decision. They simply listen to the MSM mostly because that's all they have access to.. which is what the media wants... and make a decision.

Even when asked if they care about one's character or track record, they admit they don't. It's not right.

Everyone should have the right to vote, only if they are informed and have the mental capacity to understand the implications of their vote.

Surely you can agree, this is a problem.

And groups like ACORN don't make it any easier either.

I surely do agree that this is a problem.

Go find the video of Howard Stern interviewing people in Harlem about whether or not they like Obama because he is pro-life or because he is willing to stay the course in Iraq until the job is done and you will have your proof.

But as usual the solution to a wrong situation is not to create another wrong situation. As usual the solution to a problem is to address the actual problem. If there are ignorant voters out there then by all means each one of us can get up off our butts and educate someone. I have no doubt that that is why you are here. So don't ever stoop to the level of the media that influences people with emotion rather than fact, or to the level of the politicians who influence people with lies or innuendo. Instead be better at knowing the facts (or at least in looking them up), in stating the facts convincingly and winsomely. Outhink, outlive, and outserve your opponent so that people will be drawn to your point of view. You will not win them all but you can win enough to turn the tide. We might not even win this election but if we can change the hearts and minds of even one person forever then that is a greater victory than changing the hearts and minds of 10 people for two months.

 

[Bunz]

sorry but I think its sick and twisted to think anyones life trumps anyones life

Again, I said I was going to avoid the abortion issue in this thread because it is off topic. I would suggest to you starting another thread that talks about the lack of legal due process in abortion for the fetus. You will probably get the chance to hear from Palerider, probably the best pro-life debater on this site. He makes a good argument in this area.

 

[Bunz]

And you have FAILED American Civics 101! There is NO absolute Constitutional 'Right' for any American to vote in ANY election. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, you know, the part you conveniently left out, specifically details what will happen if the States DO elect to deny anyone the 'right' of voting, specifically that the number of persons counted toward their representation in Congress shall be reduced by the number of those denied the 'right' of voting.

I didnt leave out any portion of 14Amendment Sec.2 in my quote. To address the second portion, well there are two things. Firstly, I would challenge any political party or state to move towards a system against universal suffrage based on wealth. Secondly, a direct question to you Carpenter, who do you think should vote?

The 14th Amendment clearly states that there is no 'Right' to vote, and that it is acknowledged in the Constitution, that it is a privilege, reserved to the states, and that the states may decide for themselves whom they will allow to vote in their state. All the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendment do is prevent a State from denying anyone the ability to vote based on race, sex, or for being under 18 years of age, BUT if any State were to decide tomorrow morning that in order to vote in that State that you had to be a property owner, or possess a PhD, there's nothing in the Constitution that can prevent them from doing so.

So you argue that voting is a priveldge, I will quote you the text from Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment that says priviledges cannot be taken without due process of law.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What you have failed to understand is that a 'right' that can be abridged is not a 'right' at all, but merely a privilege, and in this case the circumstances under which the 'right' of voting may be abridged is very clearly laid out. The very fact that it describes what will happen should a state decide to deny or abridge the 'right' to vote creates an "if-then" situation, that exists nowhere as it relates to any of our true Rights. Where is the "if-then" as it relates to the Right of Freedom of the Press? Where is the "if-then" as it relates to the Freedom of Religion? Where is the "if-then" as it relates to the Freedom of Speech? There are none, therefore they are Rights, and not privileges, but this does not apply to the 'right' to vote.

I think my above statements covers this.

I find this comically ironic that an angry republican is making the argument against universal suffrage based on a socialist idea.

 

[Bunz]

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about, or are you just pulling this crap out of your butt? The "General Welfare Clause" only refers to those things that are specifically containg in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, or specifically allowed for elsewhere in the Constitution.

Now, take your childish little "roll eyes",[/b] and shove them up your butt,[/b]

You seem to be a little more concerned about my butt than I feel comfortable in being discussed by you. Please leave that out of the conversation.

because all you're doing by using it is amplifying your gross, blatant, and complete ignorace of the subject material. Your using them, given your utter ignorance of the subject material reminds me of stupid little girls who roll their eyes when they've just been informed of how silly they're being, and coming off to their mother that "uhh, you don't understand", when it is THEY (and in this case, that would be YOU) who doesn't understand ANYTHING. I feel that it's only prudent to remind you of the age old addage that "it is far better to remain silent and be thought a fool, that to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"....FOOL!

Its a shame they dont make a pill to cure people who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a stupid, less masculine, and a fool. Really Carpenter, you dont seem like an irrational person, but your little rants of personal attacks give zero credibility to your views and detract from them greatly.
I never made a personal attack against you, no need to even bring this into the fold, because you will lose every time.

 

[Bunz]

Such as? I ask because you're supporting Obama and I haven't heard any limitations he plans on putting in place, in fact, he's proposing the opposite.

Hi Gen, I am aware of Obama's position on this, but that is a matter of compromise for me at this point. There are plenty of issues I disagree with Obama. Unfortunately neither candidate is what I would like, but my vote will mean little except for the unimportant poppular vote. Alaska is well within the McCain/Palin camp and our 3 votes will be easily cast.

I would say you have assumed wrong:

Promote:
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote).
3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.
6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.

I have highlighted the ones I feel are most applicable to the word as it appears in our Constitution. Promoting something does not mean that you actually bring it about through action but encourage and/or assist others in doing so.

Well the three you highlighted I would consider an improvement. But either way, Id like to know how Congress can encourage and/or assist something without taking action.

Unless I'm mistaken, the ONLY person here advocating such a drastic move is Mr. Carpenter.

I have set forth proposals for PHASING OUT OVER TIME such policies, just as they were phased in and grown over time...

We somewhat disagree here, I would encourage much better fiscal management, and a phased reduction over time, enforcement of fraud laws, and then an elimination of programs that are unnecessary/wasteful.

I PROMOTE the idea of reversing the trends that are leading to our eventual economic collapse.

Surely, but I dont think America is in much of a position of reversing those trends. We have already sold the farm.

Failure to reverse course on our current welfare state footing will inexorably lead to the confiscation of property (sacrifice of Individual Rights) from some, in order to provide for others (the Common Good)... which will never solve the problem, just stave it off a little longer.

Death and taxes are our only guarantee.
Personally, I think some serious moderation needs to be used by Congress and the Executive branch in terms of spending. I have less of a problem with the spending as I do the debt. The defecit spending is what is killing us.

 

[BigRob]

Death and taxes are our only guarantee.
Personally, I think some serious moderation needs to be used by Congress and the Executive branch in terms of spending. I have less of a problem with the spending as I do the debt. The defecit spending is what is killing us.

I do not see how you support Obama if these are your major issues.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

You seem to be a little more concerned about my butt than I feel comfortable in being discussed by you. Please leave that out of the conversation.

Well, perhaps if you were to remove your head from it, I wouldn't constantly need to point out the fact that it's up there.

Its a shame they dont make a pill to cure people who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a stupid, less masculine, and a fool. Really Carpenter, you dont seem like an irrational person, but your little rants of personal attacks give zero credibility to your views and detract from them greatly.

It's an even bigger shame that they don't make a pill to cure the willfully ignorant. Frankly, anyone who is silly enough to make as ignorant a statement as you did, NEEDS to be told that they're "stupid", and a "fool". When you make patently ludicrous statements about the "general welfare" clause, or anything else, and then throw in your assinine "roll eyes" smilies, all you've done is accent your own ignorance on a subject that I'm obviously far more qualified to discuss than you. YOU are the one that chose to exhibit for the entire world to see your own lack of comprehension of the subject, and then you have the temerity to even attempt to admonish me for responding to you in a manner consumate with your own offerings?

I never made a personal attack against you, no need to even bring this into the fold, because you will lose every time.

For the record, I consider your usage of the "roll eyes" smiley to my completely accurate submittal of the "general welfare" clause to be your own personal attack against me, and I responded in kind.

I'm also well aware of the "selective enforcement" that certain Mods routinely engage in here. You give "warnings" to people who have presented logical, cogent, and well thought out arguments, yet you allow "drive by spam trolls" and the intellectually deficient like Shaman, Popeye, Sihouette, and the rest of the "true believers" run wild, and unfettered.

 

[Dr.Who]

Hi Gen, I am aware of Obama's position on this, but that is a matter of compromise for me at this point. There are plenty of issues I disagree with Obama. Unfortunately neither candidate is what I would like, but my vote will mean little except for the unimportant poppular vote. Alaska is well within the McCain/Palin camp and our 3 votes will be easily cast.

Just be sure that your are not accepting permanent losses as a compromise for temporary gains. Any steps we take toward socialism will likely never be repealed. While his taxing of those with higher incomes can come and go as easily as presidents. Obama has even said that he is in favor of taxing those with higher incomes even if it does not result in a better economy for all. At least McCain wants to create lower taxes for everyone and a better economy for everyone.

Well the three you highlighted I would consider an improvement. But either way, Id like to know how Congress can encourage and/or assist something without taking action.

They could make inspiring speeches; so we all know that all men are created equal. But more importantly they could enact laws that establish justice for all. Equal protection under the law. They could put away the cloud of politics and actually put their country first then we could see clearly what is the problem and we ourselves could step up to help those who are in need. Then everyone will be able to go out and live the American dream.

 

[Bunz]

Just be sure that your are not accepting permanent losses as a compromise for temporary gains. Any steps we take toward socialism will likely never be repealed. While his taxing of those with higher incomes can come and go as easily as presidents. Obama has even said that he is in favor of taxing those with higher incomes even if it does not result in a better economy for all. At least McCain wants to create lower taxes for everyone and a better economy for everyone.

I think it is wishful thinking that McCain will be successful in lowering taxes or making government smaller in any meaningful way. Nor do I think Obama will be able to provide most of the promises that have been told on the campaign trail.
At the same time, both of them I am afraid are being set up to fail and take considerable heat from whatever opposition. The mess they are stepping into is immense.
McCain is no conservative, and Obama is no socialist. Both will be stuck putting out fires for the first 2 years.

They could make inspiring speeches; so we all know that all men are created equal. But more importantly they could enact laws that establish justice for all. Equal protection under the law. They could put away the cloud of politics and actually put their country first then we could see clearly what is the problem and we ourselves could step up to help those who are in need. Then everyone will be able to go out and live the American dream.

Well my reference to taking action, was Congress as a whole. Which the action that is taken is generally by enacting a law. Which usually has some sort of expenditure behind it. Unfortunately the way the system works there are all sorts of committee revisions and other verbage and associated pork.
Speeches are fine, especially if it is especially moving or noteable. But they accomplish little in reality outside of the election cycle. Otherwise I am looking for legislation and budget actions from Congress.

 

[Bunz]

Mr. Carpenter,
it appears to me you are mostly interested in 5th grade name calling. That is not what I post on this site for, my interaction with you in this thread is done. I have better things to do with my time than deal with this. Ill be seeing you around.

 

[Bunz]

I do not see how you support Obama if these are your major issues.

Those arent my major issues. Several specific foreign policy, social policy issues. But I am under no dillusion that my support for Obama at the ballot box, means anything. McCain has Alaska in the bag, and has since Palin was announced. I will probably be supporting two democrats for the house and senate seat up for grabs. Which the democrats have a good chance of stealing. Considering the Stevens trial has gone to the jury, and the verdict could come before the end of the week, we will know then for sure. If Stevens is convicted both he and Young will lose.

 

[GenSeneca]

Obama is no socialist.

Nah... He's not... Just all his friends, associates, political allies and policies are socialist.

I think you need to read some Karl Marx... all the Democrat politicians seem to have read his work and given it their rubber stamp of approval.

Anti-Capitalism

Class Warfare

Redistribution of Wealth

Big Government Policies

Any of that sound familiar?

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Nah... He's not... Just all his friends, associates, political allies and policies are socialist.

I think you need to read some Karl Marx... all the Democrat politicians seem to have read his work and given it their rubber stamp of approval.

Anti-Capitalism

Class Warfare

Redistribution of Wealth

Big Government Policies

Any of that sound familiar?

It's worse than that GenSeneca, the Democrat National Committee simply took "The Communist Manifesto" in toto, rephrased it, and announced it as their Party Platform!

Obama may not be a "Socialist", but only because he flew right past it and straight into full blown COMMUNISM!