STOP the Rich and Poor from V****g
Dec 22, 2015 12:46:59 #
It is my theory that our political problems could be solved quicker and more efficiently by eliminating the v****g eligibility of two of the three classes of the e*****rate.
We have three classes clearly defined by the media and political pundits. The Rich, Middle Class and the Poor. My solution is to make two of the three ineligible due to biased self-serving and damaging agendas.
I say that we establish a new amendment that dequalifies the Rich and the Poor from v****g and leave the e******ns up to the Middle Class. The Middle Class simply wants to work, play, raise a family, not be taxed to death and be left alone to pursue their well-earned happiness in life.
CLASS ONE: The Richest 10%. The wealthy and well-connected. The group that has power and influence over politicians in order to get what they want, thereby corrupting the system.
CLASS THREE: The Poor. Powerless, until a socialist leaning politician buys their v**e by giving them promises of something for nothing, thereby corrupting the system.
HOWEVER
CLASS TWO: The biggest majority (or it used to be). The folks that work hard. They arent trust fund babies and they arent lazy shiftless people gaming the system in order get something for nothing. (Notice that I said what theyre not. I didnt make a blanket indictment of the other two classes).
It is my humble opinion that most of our woes are due to us allowing class one and class three to have too much say in our political process. Since when have you ever heard of claims of corruption out of the Middle Class?
Thats what I think. What do you think?
We have three classes clearly defined by the media and political pundits. The Rich, Middle Class and the Poor. My solution is to make two of the three ineligible due to biased self-serving and damaging agendas.
I say that we establish a new amendment that dequalifies the Rich and the Poor from v****g and leave the e******ns up to the Middle Class. The Middle Class simply wants to work, play, raise a family, not be taxed to death and be left alone to pursue their well-earned happiness in life.
CLASS ONE: The Richest 10%. The wealthy and well-connected. The group that has power and influence over politicians in order to get what they want, thereby corrupting the system.
CLASS THREE: The Poor. Powerless, until a socialist leaning politician buys their v**e by giving them promises of something for nothing, thereby corrupting the system.
HOWEVER
CLASS TWO: The biggest majority (or it used to be). The folks that work hard. They arent trust fund babies and they arent lazy shiftless people gaming the system in order get something for nothing. (Notice that I said what theyre not. I didnt make a blanket indictment of the other two classes).
It is my humble opinion that most of our woes are due to us allowing class one and class three to have too much say in our political process. Since when have you ever heard of claims of corruption out of the Middle Class?
Thats what I think. What do you think?
Dec 22, 2015 12:54:37 #
Dec 22, 2015 14:12:58 #
JMHO wrote:
==========================================================???? Stupid!
How so? C'mon JMHO, I've seen too many of your posts to let you dismiss this as simply being stupid. Dissect the logic. Dismantle my argument. Throwing insults is a l*****t tactic. You're better than that.
What is your solution? And why is my solution stupid? Keep in mind, I did say "amendment". I'm not advocating for some imperial rule. I'm not saying this would ever happen. I'm saying that it is a solution.
I mean, if the Democrats' #1 argument against the Republicans is that they only care about the rich...
And if the Republicans' #1 argument against the Democrats is that they use the poor and uneducated to buy v**es by making promises of "free stuff"...
Then, wouldn't the logical solution be to simply call it a "wash" and de-qualify both groups, thus eliminating the element of corruption?
The odd-man out is the Middle Class with no particular axe to grind (other than budgetary issues including taxation and regulation). The Middle Class typically wants what's good for all Americans, not special interest groups and the well-connected.
Again, I say, show me a better solution. What is yours?
Dec 22, 2015 14:18:09 #
Olden McGroen wrote:
==================================================... (show quote)
A better solution is to repeal the Motor V**er Law, raise the v****g age back to 21, and eliminate early v****g. It will accomplish the same thing, without taking anyone's right away to v**e, except for the ill informed teeny boppers under 21.
Dec 22, 2015 14:25:11 #
JMHO wrote:
=========================================================A better solution is to repeal the Motor V**er Law, raise the v****g age back to 21, and eliminate early v****g. It will accomplish the same thing, without taking anyone's right away to v**e, except for the ill informed teeny boppers under 21.
Raising the v**er age to 21 and removing early v****g is your solution?
How, exactly will that accomplish the same thing? The Rich and Poor do not primarily consist of under 21 year olds.
And, by raising the age to 21...doesn't that take away the 18-20+ year olds' right to v**e?
Your solution is simply repealing one legislative act and introducing another. Mine is one amendment.
No, I don't think you're solving the problem with that solution. What else ya got?
Dec 22, 2015 14:29:00 #
Olden McGroen wrote:
==================================================... (show quote)
Wh**ever...you don't like my constitutional solution, and I don't like your unconstitutional solution. So, we'll just agree to disagree...have a nice day.
Dec 22, 2015 14:39:44 #
JMHO wrote:
==============================================================Wh**ever...you don't like my constitutional solution, and I don't like your unconstitutional solution. So, we'll just agree to disagree...have a nice day.
Wrong again. My solution IS constitutional. I'm proposing an amendment. How's that unconstitutional?
Dec 22, 2015 14:49:55 #
Olden McGroen wrote:
==============================================================
Wrong again. My solution IS constitutional. I'm proposing an amendment. How's that unconstitutional?
Wrong again. My solution IS constitutional. I'm proposing an amendment. How's that unconstitutional?
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Good luck with that.
Dec 22, 2015 15:17:15 #
JMHO wrote:
===========================================================:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Good luck with that.
Oh man, that's a great song! One of my favorites. If you like country music...I mean real country music, you should check it out on youtube. You'll love it!
"Good Luck With That" by Wade Bowen and Randy Rogers
from the album "Hold My Beer" vol. 1 A "must hear" album for all self-respecting honky tonk country music fans.
Anyhoo, this whole theory of "v**er suppression" via amendment proposal is admittedly tongue in cheek. I was hoping to get some good reactions and maybe somebody would pick up on the chicanery.
I think it's important for conservatives, constitutionalists and libertarians to be able to argue their positions with sound logic, reason and facts. Think them through and try to pick your own arguments apart. I don't always do that myself, but it is important.
I meant no harm in this exercise, just having a little fun. Merry Christmas!!! and...Good Luck With That!!!
Dec 22, 2015 15:40:47 #
You should've held out alittle longer....could've been entertaining.
Olden McGroen wrote:
==================================================... (show quote)
Dec 22, 2015 16:07:46 #
beammeupscotty wrote:
=====================================================You should've held out alittle longer....could've been entertaining.
I could tell I was starting to piss him off. Not trying to, but that's where we were headed if I pushed any further. We have to get better at debating our positions without the vitriol and name-calling.
Anyway...ROW TIDE!!!! All the way down McFarland Blvd.
Dec 23, 2015 06:14:37 #
grumpymarine
Loc: Florida
Olden McGroen wrote:
==================================================... (show quote)
Let the people who pay taxes v**e. If you are poor, that is usually from bad choices early in life. If you are rich, you have usually made good choices.
Dec 23, 2015 07:41:08 #
grumpymarine wrote:
=========================================================Let the people who pay taxes v**e. If you are poor, that is usually from bad choices early in life. If you are rich, you have usually made good choices.
That's somewhat how the Founders set it up in the beginning. Landowners were the ones that had v****g rights back then. They were the primary taxpayers.
The only problem with your suggestion is that you eliminate a good portion of the Poor, but the Rich still have all of the power and influence to create an oligarchy.
Many would argue that our system is an oligarchy under the guise of a Democratic Republic. There's a lot of evidence to support that theory. I don't necessarily subscribe to that theory, but I'm certainly not ruling it out.
Dec 23, 2015 09:01:46 #
Olden McGroen wrote:
It is my theory that our political problems could ... (show quote)
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: huh
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.