trish6912

Mar 27, 2013

^ let us know when you get your own country, k?

Side--Effect

Mar 27, 2013

^^ You are one incredibly misguided elitist individual.

Your ruse of disenfranchising the "stupid" is a transparent attempt to allow the right to vote only to voters who you consider to be beneficial to your doctrine. It doesn't work that way. One man one vote.

trish6912

Mar 27, 2013

Obviously more stupid people vote republican anyways, since their real agenda is all about the 1%.

empirestv007

Mar 27, 2013

Side--Effect : You seem to be implying that your side is the stupid one because getting rid of stupid voters would advance my ideology over yours.  Is that what you're saying?  As I have already mentioned my plan would also probably restrict a number of southern hicks from voting as well which could hurt my side. This topic is closely related to allowing felons the right to vote.  The Dems of course want felons to vote because it helps their party while the Republicans don't.  Eventually you will see Dems forming some kind of legal rational for why illegal immigrants should have the vote.

 

Side--Effect

Mar 27, 2013

You seem to be implying that your side is the stupid one because getting rid of stupid voters would advance my ideology over yours.

Which part of the word ruse do you not understand? Did you just hop over the R so that it would read use allowing you to pretend that I implied Dems are stupid?

I'm not implying anything. I'm telling you that we don't need your plan for second class citizens and centralized power.

empirestv007

Mar 27, 2013

Side--Effect: There is no ruse because I have been transparent in my meaning.  I don't care if my allies or enemies are prevented from voting or whether I am advantaged or disadvantaged by this policy.  You're trying to attack my motivations instead of the policy itself.  And you still haven't made any effort against my point that creating a smaller more informed pool of voters would actually decentralize power because now you would have 100% independent thinking individuals as opposed to 10% while you have the remaining 90% being sheep for whatever side gets them first.  If you are so opposed to centralization how about cutting taxes and lowering spending which will hinder the government's ability to centralize that power.  Ever since the Civil War there has been greater centralization of the government, so I suppose you only oppose centralization when it doesn't go your way.  

 

 

Side--Effect

Mar 27, 2013

You have elaborated on your ruse by declaring that only 10% of the electorate that is 99% literate should be eligible to vote. You only want specially selected people to be allowed to vote.

Perhaps you simply don't understand the concept of centralizing power. When you concentrate decision making to an elite core your are centralizing.

If, on the other hand, you were proposing that the 100% vote on the 10% to be their representatives you would be advocating decentralization because 10% is much larger than our current 536 elected officials.

Cutting taxes and lowering spending can not be achieved because our bicameral congress is too small allowing the party leaderships to dictate and enforce their positions. If their were 4350 House Members then each member could tell the leadership to suck eggs because they don't need party support to get re-elected or need party support to bring one of their bills to the floor, etc.

If the Republicans were serious about cutting spending they would start with something that they can cut, which is military spending, instead of something that they can't cut like medicare or SS. My Senator Tom Coburn, wants to cut spending but the party won't let him do any significant cuts. The Ryan budget is a sham and would bankrupt the country if implemented because it would cause massive job loss. 

The Republican agenda is to divert your attention with empty promises and rhetoric while they spend this country into debtors prison and blaming the Dems. I know you won't believe this or your eyes but all you have to do is look at which presidents sell the most treasury bonds to know where the debt is coming from.

I have long believed and many times said that Lincoln is the worst president that this country has ever had (it's a toss up between Bush now). Lincoln's war turned this republic from a Jeffersonian democracy to a Hamiltonian democracy. 

rip59

Mar 27, 2013

Both traditional parties have let the citizenry down.  While the dems want to peek in my wallet the republicans want to peek in my garden and bedroom.  We are entitled to SS old pharts like me and FX worked for it.  American citizens are entitled to a  safety net.  Our children need health insurance.  All is possible by eliminating foreign involvement .  Besides the above , let's just keep the government at bay as much as possible.  Let states administer the above.  What really is the need for a fed other than border issues?

empirestv007

Mar 27, 2013

Side--Effect: Whether they are literate or not is irrelevant.  Its whether they are informed on the political process, which all Americans have the opportunity and potential to do because they are 99% literate.  

I understand you want the government to centralize all power to take away centralize power from all competing factions like the corporations, religions, and so forth.  I simply disagree and I don't find you consistent.  And you haven't argued that lowering the voting pool would do anything to centralizing power.  

Compared to other European powers the party leadership is very weak and its more of a bottom-up situation in Congress where Boehner and Reid are told what to do by their members because they have slim holds on their positions.  And of course the President is often ignored by Congress so he rules by executive order whenever he can.  The problem is not Congress but idiots that vote one party for Congress and another party for Senate, who have no party loyalty, and therefore there is never a mandate for any party to do anything. If people actually had principles they would vote the party line and create these mandates like in Europe.  

The supposed job losses from Ryan's plan (which actually increases government spending over the next ten years) is theoretical.  Us going bankrupt by not lowering spending in absolute numbers is the reality.  Even if you got rid of the entire military budget it would still not be enough to close the budget deficit or pay down the debt.  And if you got rid of the military budget you would significant hurt businesses and communities attached to the military industrial complex.  

Republicans don't have the power to do anything on the federal level, so anything that goes wrong is on the Democratic Senate and the President. Republican governors are working to correct the mess the Dems did in each of these states.  You got poor credit ratings in the Dem state of California, Illinois, and New York for a reason.   

The blame goes to the Progressives who gave too much power to the masses.  

 

 

Side--Effect

Mar 27, 2013

I think I've figured out why you can not argue with reason: reading comprehension failure.

Perhaps writing comprehension failure too.

Let's see what this would look like if you had understood what was said:

I understand you want the government to centralize all power to take away centralize power from all competing factions like the corporations, religions, and so forth.  I simply disagree and I don't find you consistent.  And you haven't argued that lowering the voting pool would do anything to centralizing power. 

(this is what you might have said)

I understand that I want to centralize government and take away power from the people. I agree with myself but also find myself to be inconsistent when responding to anything. And I did not bother to read what you wrote; I'm just bullshitting this whole we need second class citizens screed. 

 

create these mandates like in Europe. 

You really don't know much about anything. In Europe they form coalitions of multiple parties to get things done which is impossible in the US because we have a two party system dictated by the money concentrated in the leaderships of the two parties.

They blame goes to the centralists who took too much power from the people.

 

rip59

Mar 27, 2013

I don't really think using europe is a good example.  Isn't FX accusing a lot of folks of being elitist lately?

empirestv007

Mar 27, 2013

Side--Effect: You totally missed the point on European politics mainly that the party bosses do have large sway over their party members in Parliament.  And when a party or coalition does take control they have complete control over the country while the opposition can do nothing.  And so when things go good or bad the party in power gets the entire blame for it.  That's accountability and mandate from the people to continue or stop.  In the US there is no such thing.  Who is accountable for this mess in the US?  The President, the Rep Congress, the Dem Senate, the Supreme Court? None of these people have any mandate to do anything when voters reelect a Rep House and reelect Obama.  What mandate is that?  There is none and there is no accountability for anything, and that is why the system is broken.  

Back in the good old days it wasn't so.  The President served a rather symbolic presence and wasn't involved too much in domestic affairs, the Supreme Court didn't wade into controversial issues, Senators were appointed by their states, and the most controversial stuff was in the House.   There was a time when the Reps were accused of overspending by the Dems in 1882 election when they spent a billion dollars, which today is $23,432,758,659.  

Anyway, you're acting like a troll saying that lowering the voting pool would increase centralization without defining your terms or what that's bad in the first place or why lowering the voting pool would cause that to happen.  You just seemed dead set on this principle that everyone should be able to vote without reasons.  

smashingmayo

Mar 27, 2013

lol @ trish. Most poor people are liberals. Most new yorkers are illiterate. they are liberals. Most who follow Obama are liberals and can't even grasp the simple math that Obama has added 6 million jobs, YET LOST MORE THAN 6 million jobs,. They go around BRAGGING he added 6 million jobs. So you don't call those people stupid? Such as yourself? You're not stupid, yet you think a net loss of jobs is something to brag about? Also all you liberals say "no u" about bush when Obama is criticized. What babies.
smashingmayo

Mar 27, 2013

I dunno if empire heard hannity today, but a preacher insisted that if Jesus was in the U.S. today (physically) that he would "change his mind" and say gay marriage is ok.
Side--Effect

Mar 27, 2013

You totally missed the point on European politics mainly that the party bosses do have large sway over their party members in Parliament.  And when a party or coalition does take control they have complete control over the country while the opposition can do nothing.

To quote the forum idiot: wrong

Anyway, you're acting like a troll saying that lowering the voting pool would decrease centralization without defining your terms and ignoring mine.

You just seemed dead set on this principle that everyone should be able to vote

Yes I do. With or without reasons.

rip59

Mar 28, 2013

So FX wants to model our nation after a group of countries facing sharia law , failing economies , worse un-employment numbers than even the most left of dems can conjure up ; and that would be acceptable.    Ah, the intelligensia.  Getting pissed off at those clever enough to get out of the mess in time. 

Side--Effect

Mar 28, 2013

So Rip wants FX to model our nation after a group of countries facing sharia law , failing economies , worse un-employment numbers than even the most left of dems can conjure up ; and that would be acceptable.    Ah, the intelligensia.  Getting pissed off at those clever enough to get out of the mess in time. 

You should elect me if you want me to do that. I probably won't, but if you elected me then I could represent your views. Otherwise STFU with the out of the ass attributions.

rip59

Mar 28, 2013

Whaaaaaat?  You really need to use that hyper bowl you were speaking of the other am.  Another fast talking demo-gogue-crat.  Don't read the bill just pass it.

Side--Effect

Mar 28, 2013

Another bullshitting right winger offering assmeal as a palatable snack.

 

rip59

Mar 28, 2013

Seems like we're outnumbering the kool-aiders.

Post a comment