Why? after all; if they didn't pay taxes then they didn't pay for the right to vote, which was your standard.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
Uh, no, that wasn't my standard, that was the standard of the post you replied to.
Here is my standard:
Taxes are a legally permissible forfeiture of someone's property. Taxes are part of adhering to a country's laws. If a government isn't representing my interests, then why should I give a shit about what it tells me to do?
If your response is that the government will put you in jail, then you're supporting the government violating other people's freedoms without justification, which is also known as oppression.
Last edited by Rockydonovang on Jan 3rd, 2018 at 01:03 PM
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
At this point I think voting is pointless as both sides are extremely corrupt. so I stopped caring.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
Since when did the educated become equated with corruption?
You show your true colors, Supreme Leader Pol Pot.
Your comment, right here, is more than enough to to convince me of what a truly disgusting and despicable person you are.
You chase the chicken and the egg, here. If the government controls education, and the electorate is woefully ignorant of who they vote for and the policies that they have, is not the government perpetuating corruption based on your logic?
Fact: the USA electorate is woefully ignorant of incumbent's, incumbent's policies and candidate's and their policies.
No they do not. That vast majority are politically ignorant. From the post you quoted of mine, if what you said was correct, the majority elected to office would not be incumbents or people with Ds or Rs in front of their name.
laugh: Restricting voting rights are what dictators do. Protecting and expanding voting rights is the opposite of the kind of act that would make me worthy of being a "supreme leader."
Indeed, so now explain to me why only representing the needs of the educated would make our populace more educated?
So? Regardless of ignorance, all citizens are expected to follow the law, hence, regardless of ignotance, all citizens should expect to vote. If the government wants an educated populace, then educate the populace.
Fact: This is a non-sequitir
Which is why I argued that it should represent the people, not that it does.
Actually, I've argued the opposite saying we do need to change it by expanding the right of voting, getting rid of lobies, getting rid of superpacs, getting rid of partisan gerrymandering, and making sure that in national elections, all people are given equal representation.
That's what any true liberal would advocate for. Advocating for oligarchy is taking away freedoms from the many and giving it to the few. It would seem you are the conservative here.
Naturally you don't respond to what I say, so you draw up a strawman arguing the exact opposite of what I've advocated for.
Right, now explain to my us having an oligarchy makes us having an oligarchy?
Whether we have an oligarchy or not was never disputed. What I've claimed and you need to argue is whether we should have an oligarchy.
This time when you respond to me, address what I say, or leave me alone.
If Trump is found to be guilty of working with Russia to undermine our election process, imho, Trumpers should be barred from voting.
The reality then would be that they voted, supported and defended a traitor to America, they should in the very least lose the right to vote. Maybe a "yuge' fine as well, a traitor's fine.
If treason is defined as levying war against the United States or aiding an enemy in doing so, we're implying that interfering with elections is analogous to some sort of war. Then doing it yourself is treason just as doing it for another country would be.
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
i recall no treason by nixon...neither committed nor alleged.
__________________ Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.