# Tea Party - Don't let renters vote.



## JimH52

Tea Party: Dont Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com

Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!


----------



## Stephanie

so you're going to tell us it's only DEMOCRATS who RENT.

good grief.


----------



## Oddball

Yup...

Voting for tenants was at the state and local levels, where the had their say-so in the makeup of the Senate (pre-17th Amendment).

If you have nothing to lose, you should have no say-so in policy, anyways.


----------



## DaGoose

The idiocy that comes out of this screwed up movement never ceases to amaze me.

First of all renters DO pay property taxes since that cost is figured into the cost of the rent.

Second of all everyone still pays local and state sales taxes.

This is a big movement but it will eventually (and rightfully) fizzle out and go away.


----------



## edthecynic

JimH52 said:


> Tea Party: Dont Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com
> 
> Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!


To hear the Tea Party Terrorists talk you'd think they were more financially successful than Libs. 

But somehow the Libs are more financially successful than CON$. Like everything about CON$, their claims are as phony as their "patriotism."


----------



## Stephanie

Well fer sure THIS hasn't been suggested before.

and I've NEVER heard of the Tea Party Nation, anybody can SAY they are from the Tea Party.

this article is crap.


----------



## California Girl

Excuse me. Can I just point out that - absolutely nowhere in that quote from the TP Nation does it say anything about not letting renters vote. Not one. At least, not in the quote provided. 

Here&#8217;s a new Tea Party plank: Don&#8217;t let renters vote.


_&#8220;The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn&#8217;t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you&#8217;re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you&#8217;re not a property owner, you know, I&#8217;m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.&#8221;
_

Where in that quote does he say we should not allow renters to vote? Nowhere.


----------



## Truthmatters

Hes saying it makes alot of sense and talking about it.

Why did he say it then?


----------



## California Girl

Truthmatters said:


> Hes saying it makes alot of sense and talking about it.
> 
> Why did he say it then?



Maybe so it would bug the crap outta the idiot left. Seems it's working.

Simply put, we don't have enough context... we don't know what led to the comment so we don't actually KNOW much. But since when has not having all the facts stopped some people from forming an opinion.


----------



## editec

> Here&#8217;s the full quote, from *Tea Party Nation Radio*:
> &#8220;The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn&#8217;t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you&#8217;re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you&#8217;re not a property owner, you know, I&#8217;m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.&#8221;​


 
One of the greatest minds of his century.

Sadly his century is the 12th.


----------



## Ravi

Renters don't have a vested interest in their community?

What next, the teapartiers wanting to take the vote away from women and blacks?


----------



## Two Thumbs

All the quote says is that the speaker agreed with the Founding Fathers idea of property owners having a greater stake in what happens.

No where did they say they wanted to remove anyones right to vote.

The blog made itself into liars.  And I will put this garbage in the trash.


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> Renters don't have a vested interest in their community?
> 
> What next, the teapartiers wanting to take the vote away from women and blacks?



It's a lot easier for a renter to move if the area starts to disintegrate. Not quite so easy if you are the owner of the property. That's the difference. 

By the way.... he didn't actually say anything about taking the right to vote away from renters... so there is no need to get hysterical about blacks, or women. Mmmmk? Rational over hypothetical.


----------



## Sallow

Two Thumbs said:


> All the quote says is that the speaker agreed with the Founding Fathers idea of property owners having a greater stake in what happens.
> 
> No where did they say they wanted to remove anyones right to vote.
> 
> The blog made itself into liars.  And I will put this garbage in the trash.



Well..



> *If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.*



Certainly seems to suggest that the speaker wants to restrict the right to vote.


----------



## uscitizen

The old lords and serfs thing.


----------



## California Girl

Sallow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the quote says is that the speaker agreed with the Founding Fathers idea of property owners having a greater stake in what happens.
> 
> No where did they say they wanted to remove anyones right to vote.
> 
> The blog made itself into liars.  And I will put this garbage in the trash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly seems to suggest that the speaker wants to restrict the right to vote.
Click to expand...


'Seems to suggest' is not 'wants to take'..... It's a valid point to make. I disagree with taking the right to vote away from any citizen. 

Also, we have only that quote.... we have no idea in what context the comment was made. I find it wise to look at context before I jump to conclusions about what someone did or did not 'suggest'.


----------



## JScott

Stephanie said:


> so you're going to tell us it's only DEMOCRATS who RENT.
> 
> good grief.



Do you support this stand by the Tea Party?


----------



## edthecynic

> The Founding Fathers originally said, *they put certain restrictions on  who gets the right to vote.* It wasnt you were just a citizen and you  got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not  think about today. But *one of those was you had to be a property owner.  And that makes a lot of sense,* because if youre a property owner you  actually have a vested stake in the community. If youre not a property  owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of  a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.





California Girl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Renters don't have a vested interest in their community?
> 
> What next, the teapartiers wanting to take the vote away from women and blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a lot easier for a renter to move if the area starts to disintegrate. Not quite so easy if you are the owner of the property. That's the difference.
> 
> By the way....* he didn't actually say anything about taking the right to vote away from renters.*.. so there is no need to get hysterical about blacks, or women. Mmmmk? Rational over hypothetical.
Click to expand...

What part of *RESTRICTIONS* don't you understand?????


----------



## Two Thumbs

Sallow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the quote says is that the speaker agreed with the Founding Fathers idea of property owners having a greater stake in what happens.
> 
> No where did they say they wanted to remove anyones right to vote.
> 
> The blog made itself into liars.  And I will put this garbage in the trash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly seems to suggest that the speaker wants to restrict the right to vote.
Click to expand...


It sure as hell does, depending on your point of view.

If you thing the TP is fulla BS, you're gonna see what they say in the worst light possible.
If you think the TP are messengers of god, well, pfft, you won't find any fault.

Bringing it up was crass, we haven't lived that way in a LOONNGGG time.  
Technically she's right.  The owner has more to lose and/or gain.

It's created an odd situation with taxes.  If you don't own, raising property taxes has little direct effect on you (until the rent gets raised), so you will support raising them to pay for something.  (you is a general term, not actually 'you'.)

And I can attest that it's property taxes that kept me out of buying a home.  I can save and swing a morgage, but an extra $2500 in taxes is beyond my reach.  (don't laugh, I know that's a weeks rent in NYC)


----------



## Two Thumbs

JScott said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you're going to tell us it's only DEMOCRATS who RENT.
> 
> good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support this stand by the Tea Party?
Click to expand...


It's not the whole TEA party nor is it thier stance

Don't be a dipshit, be alert, we need all the lerts we can get.


----------



## Two Thumbs

edthecynic said:


> the founding fathers originally said, *they put certain restrictions on  who gets the right to vote.* it wasnt you were just a citizen and you  got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not  think about today. But *one of those was you had to be a property owner.  And that makes a lot of sense,* because if youre a property owner you  actually have a vested stake in the community. If youre not a property  owner, you know, im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of  a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> california girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> renters don't have a vested interest in their community?
> 
> What next, the teapartiers wanting to take the vote away from women and blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's a lot easier for a renter to move if the area starts to disintegrate. Not quite so easy if you are the owner of the property. That's the difference.
> 
> By the way....* he didn't actually say anything about taking the right to vote away from renters.*.. So there is no need to get hysterical about blacks, or women. Mmmmk? Rational over hypothetical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what part of *restrictions* don't you understand?????
Click to expand...


alert alert

mr. Shaman has hacked edthywhaters account!!

Alert alert!!!


----------



## kwc57

Universal suffrage is not a right.

Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Nosmo King

Restrict voting rights.  What else is new.

Could someone who thinks this Tea Party movement is really on to something good please explain to me and the rest of us precisely which rights the Tea Party wants to expand (other than putting 30 round clips in fully automatic weapons and then putting as many of those weapons on the streets as possible as soon as possible)?


----------



## Ravi

I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> Restrict voting rights.  What else is new.
> 
> Could someone who thinks this Tea Party movement is really on to something good please explain to me and the rest of us precisely which rights the Tea Party wants to expand (other than putting 30 round clips in fully automatic weapons and then putting as many of those weapons on the streets as possible as soon as possible)?



Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?


You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.

Just like you were supposed to do.


----------



## kwc57

Ravi said:


> I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.



We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride.  My step-nephew being one of them.  He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables.  He got a $600 tax return.  Go figure.


----------



## edthecynic

kwc57 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride.*  My step-nephew being one of them.  He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables.  He got a $600 tax return.  Go figure.
Click to expand...

You can thank the GOP's buying votes with tax cuts for that.


----------



## goldcatt

Suffrage is in a category separate from the enumerated rights, but that doesn't mean it can simply be taken away.

Voting is considered a liberty protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th. Universal suffrage beyond the voting amendments was never mandated, but it's a liberty that once given cannot be taken away without due process of law (hence, convicted felons can be denied the right to vote) and equal protection. 

Financial status or property ownership are not rationally related to the right to vote. There are also questions of whether the 24th would apply to payment of property taxes, as it bans the denial of the right to vote not just based on payment of a poll tax but payment of "any other tax". It's never been tested since nobody's been stupid enough to try it, but the language is more than clear.

It'll never happen anyway. It would take an Amendment, which would be a political kiss of death for every Congressperson and state legislator who supported it and the pols know it. But anybody who may or may not champion the idea doesn't know their basic 14th jurisprudence.


----------



## Ravi

kwc57 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride.  My step-nephew being one of them.  He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables.  He got a $600 tax return.  Go figure.
Click to expand...

A refund could simply mean that he overpaid to begin with.


----------



## Nosmo King

Two Thumbs said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Restrict voting rights.  What else is new.
> 
> Could someone who thinks this Tea Party movement is really on to something good please explain to me and the rest of us precisely which rights the Tea Party wants to expand (other than putting 30 round clips in fully automatic weapons and then putting as many of those weapons on the streets as possible as soon as possible)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?
> 
> 
> You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.
> 
> Just like you were supposed to do.
Click to expand...

I read the OP.  I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights.  This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party.  Keep backpedaling.  Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.


----------



## JimH52

Ravi said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride.  My step-nephew being one of them.  He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables.  He got a $600 tax return.  Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A refund could simply mean that he overpaid to begin with.
Click to expand...


That is far too simple for some to understand.  This is just the beginning of Tea Bagger attempts to turn back the clock.


----------



## goldcatt

Nosmo King said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Restrict voting rights.  What else is new.
> 
> Could someone who thinks this Tea Party movement is really on to something good please explain to me and the rest of us precisely which rights the Tea Party wants to expand (other than putting 30 round clips in fully automatic weapons and then putting as many of those weapons on the streets as possible as soon as possible)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?
> 
> 
> You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.
> 
> Just like you were supposed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read the OP.  I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights.  This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party.  Keep backpedaling.  Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.
Click to expand...


And it's the liberals who are routinely accused of fomenting class warfare. 

I don't believe TP'ers in general back taking away the right to vote based on property ownership, but the idea's been floated more than once in this forum alone. And usually by people who don't know shit from shinola about "liberty" but repeat the mantra anyway. Fringe types.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Restrict voting rights.  What else is new.
> 
> Could someone who thinks this Tea Party movement is really on to something good please explain to me and the rest of us precisely which rights the Tea Party wants to expand (other than putting 30 round clips in fully automatic weapons and then putting as many of those weapons on the streets as possible as soon as possible)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?
> 
> 
> You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.
> 
> Just like you were supposed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read the OP.  I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights.  This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party.  Keep backpedaling.  Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.
Click to expand...


And that's why no one supports it.  This person was talking about one of the Founders ideas on who can and can't vote.

Not a damn thing more.

But like you were supposed to do, you assumed all people in the TEA wanted to do this.

You were tricked by the headline, nothing more was expected.


----------



## Nosmo King

goldcatt said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?
> 
> 
> You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.
> 
> Just like you were supposed to do.
> 
> 
> 
> I read the OP.  I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights.  This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party.  Keep backpedaling.  Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the liberals who are routinely accused of fomenting class warfare.
> 
> I don't believe TP'ers in general back taking away the right to vote based on property ownership, but the idea's been floated more than once in this forum alone. And usually by people who don't know shit from shinola about "liberty" but repeat the mantra anyway. Fringe types.
Click to expand...

And among the fringe types and Conservatives in general there is a pervasive attitude that civil liberties should be eroded.  There's never any advocacy of expansion of civil liberties, ever.  The only rights they are really interested in protecting and expanding is the right to pack heat.


----------



## goldcatt

Nosmo King said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the OP.  I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights.  This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party.  Keep backpedaling.  Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's the liberals who are routinely accused of fomenting class warfare.
> 
> I don't believe TP'ers in general back taking away the right to vote based on property ownership, but the idea's been floated more than once in this forum alone. And usually by people who don't know shit from shinola about "liberty" but repeat the mantra anyway. Fringe types.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And among the fringe types and Conservatives in general there is a pervasive attitude that civil liberties should be eroded.  There's never any advocacy of expansion of civil liberties, ever.  The only rights they are really interested in protecting and expanding is the right to pack heat.
Click to expand...


Depends which type of conservative. Yeah, there's a camp that's exactly like you describe. And they're loud, and they were in power for years. Authoritarian social cons, neocons, even some of the reactionary Big-L "libertarians" as I refer to them, the far right wing nuts who join the libertarian party but really aren't libertarian. There are others who are more classically or fiscally conservative, and more small-l libertarian. I hate saying "all" cons because we do have a fair number of that latter group around They just don't troll and scream.


----------



## Provocateur

DaGoose said:


> The idiocy that comes out of this screwed up movement never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> First of all renters DO pay property taxes since that cost is figured into the cost of the rent.
> 
> Second of all everyone still pays local and state sales taxes.
> 
> This is a big movement but it will eventually (and rightfully) fizzle out and go away.



The state of denial is apparently very deep within you.

The Tea Party isn't leaving.  I'm sorry that this is hard for you to accept.  I'm here to help you work through it if need be.

November 2010 was step one.  Step two is November 2012.


----------



## geauxtohell

Oddball said:


> Yup...
> 
> Voting for tenants was at the state and local levels, where the had their say-so in the makeup of the Senate (pre-17th Amendment).
> 
> If you have nothing to lose, you should have no say-so in policy, anyways.



That's fucking absurd.  

My wife and I rent as we are both in professional school.  As I am finishing medical school and don't know where I will be for residency in 18 months, buying a house would be the most fiscally irresponsible move we could make at this point.

Six years ago at this time, I was in Afghanistan serving my nation.  

I don't deserve a say in public policy because I don't own property?  Owning property is the litmus test now?  That's as fucking stupid as people who say that only veterans should be able to vote.  

You guys really should run with this.


----------



## California Girl

geauxtohell said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...
> 
> Voting for tenants was at the state and local levels, where the had their say-so in the makeup of the Senate (pre-17th Amendment).
> 
> If you have nothing to lose, you should have no say-so in policy, anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fucking absurd.
> 
> My wife and I rent as we are both in professional school.  As I am finishing medical school and don't know where I will be for residency in 18 months, buying a house would be the most fiscally irresponsible move we could make at this point.
> 
> Six years ago at this time, I was in Afghanistan serving my nation.
> 
> I don't deserve a say in public policy because I don't own property?  Owning property is the litmus test now?  That's as fucking stupid as people who say that only veterans should be able to vote.
> 
> You guys really should run with this.
Click to expand...


You are aware, are you not, that the title is somewhat disingenuous.... The TEA Parties have not said it, nor is it a principle of the TEA Parties. One guy made a comment, for which we have not context... and.... he did NOT say that renters should not be allowed to vote. 

This is, again, a made up piece of shit.... and, again, instead of asking questions, people just assume it's accurate and rant. 

Critical thinking - it is your friend.


----------



## Samson

DaGoose said:


> The idiocy that comes out of this screwed up movement never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> First of all renters DO pay property taxes since that cost is figured into the cost of the rent.
> 
> Second of all everyone still pays local and state sales taxes.
> 
> This is a big movement but it will eventually (and rightfully) fizzle out and go away.



Maybe it will "fizzle out and go away."

But it won't be because they support the portions of the original consitution. But it is no surprise that we have allowed this portion of the constitution to change.

Here is the actual quote from the Tea Party Representative from link in the OP:



> &#8220;The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn&#8217;t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And* that makes a lot of sense, because if you&#8217;re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community*. If you&#8217;re not a property owner, you know, I&#8217;m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.&#8221;
> 
> Republicans have always had a fondness for the past. But, do we really want to jump right back to the Middle Ages?



First, it is called the TEA PARTY because they're against unfair taxes.

Second, it is TRUE that owners have a greater investment in the community than renters.

Third, if you don't get a vote because you don't own property, then you shouldn't be taxed for property (see #1). 

If rental property is not taxed, then only the competitive market value of the rental property would be reflected in the price. Without having to float on a tax basis, rental prices would decrease.

Where would the government raise the revenue for that lost on rental taxes?

They would increase the tax on non-rental property owners (homes and businesses).


Soon everyone would choose to rent, and no one would be "vested in any community."

This is why the premise of only allowing property owners to vote didn't work.


----------



## zzzz

This would also take away the votes of college students, parents living with their children, children living with their parents, lots of senior citizens who do not own property and numerous other classes. It would never get a hearing and I think everyone knows this.


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> You are aware, are you not, that the title is somewhat disingenuous.... The TEA Parties have not said it, nor is it a principle of the TEA Parties. One guy made a comment, for which we have not context... and.... he did NOT say that renters should not be allowed to vote.
> 
> This is, again, a made up piece of shit.... and, again, instead of asking questions, people just assume it's accurate and rant.
> 
> Critical thinking - it is your friend.



As there is no official "Tea Party", there really is no official "Tea Party Platform", which is why I responded to a specific poster who agreed with this notion.

But let's just treat this as an academic exercise where a TP person came out and said that there is merit to the idea that only property owners should vote.  Now, for the sake of debate, let's say this is an actual ideal that is being proposed to we can discuss it on a *gasp* political message board:

Do you support it?


----------



## Provocateur

California Girl said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...
> 
> Voting for tenants was at the state and local levels, where the had their say-so in the makeup of the Senate (pre-17th Amendment).
> 
> If you have nothing to lose, you should have no say-so in policy, anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fucking absurd.
> 
> My wife and I rent as we are both in professional school.  As I am finishing medical school and don't know where I will be for residency in 18 months, buying a house would be the most fiscally irresponsible move we could make at this point.
> 
> Six years ago at this time, I was in Afghanistan serving my nation.
> 
> I don't deserve a say in public policy because I don't own property?  Owning property is the litmus test now?  That's as fucking stupid as people who say that only veterans should be able to vote.
> 
> You guys really should run with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are aware, are you not, that the title is somewhat disingenuous.... The TEA Parties have not said it, nor is it a principle of the TEA Parties. One guy made a comment, for which we have not context... and.... he did NOT say that renters should not be allowed to vote.
> 
> This is, again, a made up piece of shit.... and, again, instead of asking questions, people just assume it's accurate and rant.
> 
> Critical thinking - it is your friend.
Click to expand...


I think the stretch comes from Tea Partiers wanting to preserve the Constitution as it was written 200+ years ago (so the libs say).  From that liberals connect that in the Constitution, only landowners were allowed to vote.

Therefore, because we like the Constitution, then we must support the whole landownership aspect.

It's a stretch, but then again, liberals will spin anything to make an argument, especially when they can't discuss their own principles and ideals because their ideas are just so incredibly unworthy of discussion.  You never notice threads started about the merits of liberalism, it is always attack the other side.

Pathetic, really.


----------



## geauxtohell

Provocateur said:


> I think the stretch comes from Tea Partiers wanting to preserve the Constitution as it was written 200+ years ago (so the libs say).  From that liberals connect that in the Constitution, only landowners were allowed to vote.
> 
> Therefore, because we like the Constitution, then we must support the whole landownership aspect.
> 
> It's a stretch, but then again, liberals will spin anything to make an argument, especially when they can't discuss their own principles and ideals because their ideas are just so incredibly unworthy of discussion.  You never notice threads started about the merits of liberalism, it is always attack the other side.
> 
> Pathetic, really.



Let's discuss the principal, then.

If someone could pull a magic level and reduce voting to landowners, a person like me:  a combat veteran in medical school would not be able to vote for a country I fought for.

If you support this asinine notion, tell me why I am not worthy to have my say on election day?


----------



## Provocateur

geauxtohell said:


> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the stretch comes from Tea Partiers wanting to preserve the Constitution as it was written 200+ years ago (so the libs say).  From that liberals connect that in the Constitution, only landowners were allowed to vote.
> 
> Therefore, because we like the Constitution, then we must support the whole landownership aspect.
> 
> It's a stretch, but then again, liberals will spin anything to make an argument, especially when they can't discuss their own principles and ideals because their ideas are just so incredibly unworthy of discussion.  You never notice threads started about the merits of liberalism, it is always attack the other side.
> 
> Pathetic, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's discuss the principal, then.
> 
> If someone could pull a magic level and reduce voting to landowners, a person like me:  a combat veteran in medical school would not be able to vote for a country I fought for.
> 
> If you support this asinine notion, tell me why I am not worthy to have my say on election day?
Click to expand...


I didn't say I supported that position whatsoever.

Do I understand why landownership was considered important 200+ years ago?  Yes.  Do I think that it is reasonable still today?  No.  I think that renters should not be penalized.

Here is a test for you.

Ask Tea Party people (like myself) if they support:

A) Voting for landowners only 
B) Removing the subsidy for claiming interest on home mortgages, as it penalizes renters


I think that you might be surprised where people actually stand if you simply ask.


Will you get zany out there Tea Party people?  Of course.  They probably also dress up in Renaissance wear and go have mock battles on weekends as well.

The normal Tea Party person just wants to get the governments role, specifically the federal governments role, under control with its spending.  They want them to make better choices.

And it isn't Obama or even liberals specifically, as the movement gained momentum when TARP was passed under Bush.


----------



## geauxtohell

Provocateur said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the stretch comes from Tea Partiers wanting to preserve the Constitution as it was written 200+ years ago (so the libs say).  From that liberals connect that in the Constitution, only landowners were allowed to vote.
> 
> Therefore, because we like the Constitution, then we must support the whole landownership aspect.
> 
> It's a stretch, but then again, liberals will spin anything to make an argument, especially when they can't discuss their own principles and ideals because their ideas are just so incredibly unworthy of discussion.  You never notice threads started about the merits of liberalism, it is always attack the other side.
> 
> Pathetic, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's discuss the principal, then.
> 
> If someone could pull a magic level and reduce voting to landowners, a person like me:  a combat veteran in medical school would not be able to vote for a country I fought for.
> 
> If you support this asinine notion, tell me why I am not worthy to have my say on election day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I supported that position whatsoever.
> 
> Do I understand why landownership was considered important 200+ years ago?  Yes.  Do I think that it is reasonable still today?  No.  I think that renters should not be penalized.
> 
> Here is a test for you.
> 
> Ask Tea Party people (like myself) if they support:
> 
> A) Voting for landowners only
> B) Removing the subsidy for claiming interest on home mortgages, as it penalizes renters
> 
> 
> I think that you might be surprised where people actually stand if you simply ask.
> 
> 
> Will you get zany out there Tea Party people?  Of course.  They probably also dress up in Renaissance wear and go have mock battles on weekends as well.
> 
> The normal Tea Party person just wants to get the governments role, specifically the federal governments role, under control with its spending.  They want them to make better choices.
> 
> And it isn't Obama or even liberals specifically, as the movement gained momentum when TARP was passed under Bush.
Click to expand...


That's why I asked you.  If you aren't going to advocate for this, then obviously we aren't going to debate it.


----------



## Provocateur

geauxtohell said:


> Provocateur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's discuss the principal, then.
> 
> If someone could pull a magic level and reduce voting to landowners, a person like me:  a combat veteran in medical school would not be able to vote for a country I fought for.
> 
> If you support this asinine notion, tell me why I am not worthy to have my say on election day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I supported that position whatsoever.
> 
> Do I understand why landownership was considered important 200+ years ago?  Yes.  Do I think that it is reasonable still today?  No.  I think that renters should not be penalized.
> 
> Here is a test for you.
> 
> Ask Tea Party people (like myself) if they support:
> 
> A) Voting for landowners only
> B) Removing the subsidy for claiming interest on home mortgages, as it penalizes renters
> 
> 
> I think that you might be surprised where people actually stand if you simply ask.
> 
> 
> Will you get zany out there Tea Party people?  Of course.  They probably also dress up in Renaissance wear and go have mock battles on weekends as well.
> 
> The normal Tea Party person just wants to get the governments role, specifically the federal governments role, under control with its spending.  They want them to make better choices.
> 
> And it isn't Obama or even liberals specifically, as the movement gained momentum when TARP was passed under Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why I asked you.  If you aren't going to advocate for this, then obviously we aren't going to debate it.
Click to expand...


I don't think you will find many to debate you.  Some, perhaps.  I hope that doesn't lead you to believe that a few people represent an entire movement.


----------



## California Girl

geauxtohell said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are aware, are you not, that the title is somewhat disingenuous.... The TEA Parties have not said it, nor is it a principle of the TEA Parties. One guy made a comment, for which we have not context... and.... he did NOT say that renters should not be allowed to vote.
> 
> This is, again, a made up piece of shit.... and, again, instead of asking questions, people just assume it's accurate and rant.
> 
> Critical thinking - it is your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As there is no official "Tea Party", there really is no official "Tea Party Platform", which is why I responded to a specific poster who agreed with this notion.
> 
> But let's just treat this as an academic exercise where a TP person came out and said that there is merit to the idea that only property owners should vote.  Now, for the sake of debate, let's say this is an actual ideal that is being proposed to we can discuss it on a *gasp* political message board:
> 
> Do you support it?
Click to expand...


There are a set of nationally agreed principles. This specific person made a comment - for which we have no context. How can anyone honestly debate it without context? *Emphasis on the word 'honestly'*


----------



## geauxtohell

Provocateur said:


> I don't think you will find many to debate you.  Some, perhaps.  I hope that doesn't lead you to believe that a few people represent an entire movement.



I don't think that.


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> There are a set of nationally agreed principles. This specific person made a comment - for which we have no context. How can anyone honestly debate it without context? *Emphasis on the word 'honestly'*



At least one poster on here agreed with the position.  That is why I responded to him.


----------



## Ravi

goldcatt said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got any more bullshit you wanna pull outta your ass?
> 
> 
> You were fooled by the title and did no critical thinking after that point.
> 
> Just like you were supposed to do.
> 
> 
> 
> I read the OP.  I read where tea Party leaders considered the property ownership clause in voting rights.  This leads me to believe that such considerations are not off the radar of the Tea Party.  Keep backpedaling.  Run away because you know as all rational people that restricting voting rights is not only political suicide but completely unethical and un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the liberals who are routinely accused of fomenting class warfare.
> 
> I don't believe TP'ers in general back taking away the right to vote based on property ownership, but the idea's been floated more than once in this forum alone. And usually by people who don't know shit from shinola about "liberty" but repeat the mantra anyway. *Fringe types*.
Click to expand...


Case in point:



Oddball said:


> Yup...
> 
> Voting for tenants was at the state and local levels, where the had  their say-so in the makeup of the Senate (pre-17th Amendment).
> 
> If you have nothing to lose, you should have no say-so in policy, anyways.


----------



## Toro

JimH52 said:


> Tea Party: Don&#8217;t Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com
> 
> Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!



The flaw in this reasoning - or at least one of the hundreds of flaws - is that it assumes the property owners are more likely to do what's best for the community.

But property owners are a special interest group unto themselves, and have incentives to write laws to benefit only themselves at the expense of everyone else.


----------



## kwc57

Ravi said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose if people aren't allowed to vote then they need not pay taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride.  My step-nephew being one of them.  He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables.  He got a $600 tax return.  Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A refund could simply mean that he overpaid to begin with.
Click to expand...


My bad for not being descriptive enough.  My brother, his step-father did his 2009 taxes for him.  The kid (around 25 or 26) can't keep a job or do much of anything else except strum his guitar and hang out with his bohemian friends.  He keeps moving back in with my brother and his wife (mom) because he isn't mature enough to take care of himself.  He is a classic moocher.  To my brother's surprise when he did his step-sons taxes, he got a refund greater than the taxes he paid.  In other words, he paid zero taxes plus got extra back from the government.  My brother re-did it about four times and even took it by a tax office to double check.  For those of us with educations, good jobs and paying taxes that the government keeps, we are giving moochers like him money for nothing.

True story!


----------



## Ravi

kwc57 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride.  My step-nephew being one of them.  He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables.  He got a $600 tax return.  Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> A refund could simply mean that he overpaid to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad for not being descriptive enough.  My brother, his step-father did his 2009 taxes for him.  The kid (around 25 or 26) can't keep a job or do much of anything else except strum his guitar and hang out with his bohemian friends.  He keeps moving back in with my brother and his wife (mom) because he isn't mature enough to take care of himself.  He is a classic moocher.  To my brother's surprise when he did his step-sons taxes, he got a refund greater than the taxes he paid.  In other words, he paid zero taxes plus got extra back from the government.  My brother re-did it about four times and even took it by a tax office to double check.  For those of us with educations, good jobs and paying taxes that the government keeps, we are giving moochers like him money for nothing.
> 
> True story!
Click to expand...

The only way that I know of that this could be possible is if he was receiving earned income tax credits...and he'd have to have a child to receive them.

Sorry, I doubt the story.


----------



## Toro

goldcatt said:


> Suffrage is in a category separate from the enumerated rights, but that doesn't mean it can simply be taken away.
> 
> Voting is considered a liberty protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th. Universal suffrage beyond the voting amendments was never mandated, but it's a liberty that once given cannot be taken away without due process of law (hence, convicted felons can be denied the right to vote) and equal protection.
> 
> Financial status or property ownership are not rationally related to the right to vote. There are also questions of whether the 24th would apply to payment of property taxes, as it bans the denial of the right to vote not just based on payment of a poll tax but payment of "any other tax". It's never been tested since nobody's been stupid enough to try it, but the language is more than clear.
> 
> It'll never happen anyway. It would take an Amendment, which would be a political kiss of death for every Congressperson and state legislator who supported it and the pols know it. But anybody who may or may not champion the idea doesn't know their basic 14th jurisprudence.



I owe you a rep for this.

One thing I don't understand from the Far Right who espouse the idea of linking voting with property rights is that the individual as sovereign is, or at least appears to be, a fundamental ideal of what it means to be an American.  Yet, there is no greater exercise of personal sovereignty than determining how one is to be ruled.  If an individual has no say over how he is to be ruled, how can the individual be sovereign?  It seems that someone who is denied a voice in how he is ruled because he does not own property is a politically indentured servant to those who do.


----------



## Toro

JimH52 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have far too many people not paying taxes now getting a free ride.  My step-nephew being one of them.  He is something of a musician and free spirit who made a few thousand bucks periodically waiting tables.  He got a $600 tax return.  Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> A refund could simply mean that he overpaid to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is far too simple for some to understand.  This is just the beginning of Tea Bagger attempts to turn back the clock.
Click to expand...


I would be willing to bet that most Tea Party supporters disagree with making property a precondition to voting.


----------



## Toro

geauxtohell said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a set of nationally agreed principles. This specific person made a comment - for which we have no context. How can anyone honestly debate it without context? *Emphasis on the word 'honestly'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least one poster on here agreed with the position.  That is why I responded to him.
Click to expand...


Oddball has made this argument before.


----------



## kwc57

Ravi said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> A refund could simply mean that he overpaid to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My bad for not being descriptive enough.  My brother, his step-father did his 2009 taxes for him.  The kid (around 25 or 26) can't keep a job or do much of anything else except strum his guitar and hang out with his bohemian friends.  He keeps moving back in with my brother and his wife (mom) because he isn't mature enough to take care of himself.  He is a classic moocher.  To my brother's surprise when he did his step-sons taxes, he got a refund greater than the taxes he paid.  In other words, he paid zero taxes plus got extra back from the government.  My brother re-did it about four times and even took it by a tax office to double check.  For those of us with educations, good jobs and paying taxes that the government keeps, we are giving moochers like him money for nothing.
> 
> True story!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only way that I know of that this could be possible is if he was receiving earned income tax credits...and he'd have to have a child to receive them.
> 
> Sorry, I doubt the story.
Click to expand...


Of course you do.  Reality conflicts with your ideology quite a bit.  I know my twin brother well and know him to tell the truth.


----------



## Nosmo King

Toro said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party: Dont Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com
> 
> Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in this reasoning - or at least one of the hundreds of flaws - is that it assumes the property owners are more likely to do what's best for the community.
> 
> But property owners are a special interest group unto themselves, and have incentives to write laws to benefit only themselves at the expense of everyone else.
Click to expand...

Right!  Like letting landlords write housing codes!  Or factory owners writing environmental  or workplace safety regulations.


----------



## DaGoose

Toro said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> A refund could simply mean that he overpaid to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is far too simple for some to understand.  This is just the beginning of Tea Bagger attempts to turn back the clock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that most Tea Party supporters disagree with making property a precondition to voting.
Click to expand...


Then I guess we'll see a public denial of the comments made by Judson Phillips, president of prominent Tea Party group Tea Party Nation?


----------



## Ravi

kwc57 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bad for not being descriptive enough.  My brother, his step-father did his 2009 taxes for him.  The kid (around 25 or 26) can't keep a job or do much of anything else except strum his guitar and hang out with his bohemian friends.  He keeps moving back in with my brother and his wife (mom) because he isn't mature enough to take care of himself.  He is a classic moocher.  To my brother's surprise when he did his step-sons taxes, he got a refund greater than the taxes he paid.  In other words, he paid zero taxes plus got extra back from the government.  My brother re-did it about four times and even took it by a tax office to double check.  For those of us with educations, good jobs and paying taxes that the government keeps, we are giving moochers like him money for nothing.
> 
> True story!
> 
> 
> 
> The only way that I know of that this could be possible is if he was receiving earned income tax credits...and he'd have to have a child to receive them.
> 
> Sorry, I doubt the story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you do.  Reality conflicts with your ideology quite a bit.  I know my twin brother well and know him to tell the truth.
Click to expand...

 Then provide a link showing how someone can get a refund without an earned income credit.


----------



## RadiomanATL

i know its possible to get a refund over and above what you paid in taxes even if you don't have kids. but you really really really don't make much money during the year in order to get it. same thing happened to me when i had my first job when i was 15.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> i know its possible to get a refund over and above what you paid in taxes even if you don't have kids. but you really really really don't make much money during the year in order to get it. same thing happened to me when i had my first job when i was 15.


How? My kids have been on the company payroll since they were old enough to empty the trash. They were always paid a low wage so they didn't get taxes deducted (other than FICA) and they never got a "refund" ...


----------



## RadiomanATL

i think i got back like $75. posting from my dumb-phone right now, so i can't link to anything, but i'll make up some bogus numbers and run them through turbo tax tonight. or someone else can do the same thing. turbotax online is free.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> i think i got back like $75. posting from my dumb-phone right now, so i can't link to anything, but i'll make up some bogus numbers and run them through turbo tax tonight. or someone else can do the same thing. turbotax online is free.


Okay...I'll look forward to your scenario. Methinks you are misremembering but I have no problem being proved wrong.


----------



## RadiomanATL

ravi...i don't really remember how. i'll make up some stuff 2nite and run it through turbotax. i was a fulltime student tho, maybe that played into the equation?


----------



## geauxtohell

Toro said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a set of nationally agreed principles. This specific person made a comment - for which we have no context. How can anyone honestly debate it without context? *Emphasis on the word 'honestly'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least one poster on here agreed with the position.  That is why I responded to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oddball has made this argument before.
Click to expand...


It's a lame argument.  

As the military pays for housing, most service members are not property owners.  The rare exception being senior officers and enlisted men who have bought property as an investment.  

This would basically disenfranchise the very people that are supposed to be fighting for this ideal. 

Nice.  

Good to see it's just all about the Benjamins to some people.

The rest "don't deserve a say", no matter how much blood, sweat, and tears they have shed.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> ravi...i don't really remember how. i'll make up some stuff 2nite and run it through turbotax. i was a fulltime student tho, maybe that played into the equation?


At 15...you'd have been in high school? I don't think that would qualify. I know when I was working at fifteen I got a refund the first year because I filled out my W4 incorrectly and had too much deducted from my check.


----------



## goldcatt

In high school? My first employer didn't believe there was any such thing as "exempt" and withheld taxes even though I never made enough in a single year that they should have been. So of course every year I got a refund. But I don't remember getting more than I'd paid. Things change so much every year though, if it doesn't apply to me I can't keep up.

Now I get a refund, but I have the kiddos.


----------



## California Girl

geauxtohell said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a set of nationally agreed principles. This specific person made a comment - for which we have no context. How can anyone honestly debate it without context? *Emphasis on the word 'honestly'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least one poster on here agreed with the position.  That is why I responded to him.
Click to expand...


Look at the thread title. If we start off from a dishonest point, how does anyone discuss the subject. Honesty is fundamental to legitimate discussion. Which is why I often mock the idea that USMB provides a platform for such debate. With the freedom that this board allows (and huge high five to Gunny and the team for that), the price we pay is to forego honesty.


----------



## Nosmo King

goldcatt said:


> In high school? My first employer didn't believe there was any such thing as "exempt" and withheld taxes even though I never made enough in a single year that they should have been. So of course every year I got a refund. But I don't remember getting more than I'd paid. Things change so much every year though, if it doesn't apply to me I can't keep up.
> 
> Now I get a refund, but I have the kiddos.


The mortgage is paid off.  I have no deductions.  No dependents.  I make <$250,000.  And yet every year I pay taxes.

I must be rich!  The Republicans tell me so.


----------



## goldcatt

Nosmo King said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In high school? My first employer didn't believe there was any such thing as "exempt" and withheld taxes even though I never made enough in a single year that they should have been. So of course every year I got a refund. But I don't remember getting more than I'd paid. Things change so much every year though, if it doesn't apply to me I can't keep up.
> 
> Now I get a refund, but I have the kiddos.
> 
> 
> 
> The mortgage is paid off.  I have no deductions.  No dependents.  I make <$250,000.  And yet every year I pay taxes.
> 
> I must be rich!  The Republicans tell me so.
Click to expand...


Just because I get a refund doesn't mean it's equal to or greater than the amount I paid in during the year. 

And....I am in a temporary situation and will probably be moving before too long. Which I knew when I moved here, so I rent. Buying would have been stupid and pointless to hold it for a period of only a few years then turn around and sell it. But don't tell anybody, they might take my registration card away. Because since I'm not landed gentry I have, as you know, no ties to or interest in the community where I live, work and serve and accordingly don't deserve representation.


----------



## kwc57

Ravi said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way that I know of that this could be possible is if he was receiving earned income tax credits...and he'd have to have a child to receive them.
> 
> Sorry, I doubt the story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do.  Reality conflicts with your ideology quite a bit.  I know my twin brother well and know him to tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then provide a link showing how someone can get a refund without an earned income credit.
Click to expand...


Sorry, no.  I have a day job and post when I have a minute here and there.  I can't go do a bunch of research to prove to you what my twin brother actually had happen in real life.  You don't have to believe him.  I choose to.


----------



## Ravi

kwc57 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do.  Reality conflicts with your ideology quite a bit.  I know my twin brother well and know him to tell the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Then provide a link showing how someone can get a refund without an earned income credit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.  I have a day job and post when I have a minute here and there.  I can't go do a bunch of research to prove to you what my twin brother actually had happen in real life.  You don't have to believe him.  I choose to.
Click to expand...

I did some research and it is possible he benefited from a one time economic stimulus payment.

Economic Stimulus Payment Information Center

Though it would be odd if your brother hadn't explained that part to you.


----------



## kwc57

Ravi said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then provide a link showing how someone can get a refund without an earned income credit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.  I have a day job and post when I have a minute here and there.  I can't go do a bunch of research to prove to you what my twin brother actually had happen in real life.  You don't have to believe him.  I choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did some research and it is possible he benefited from a one time economic stimulus payment.
> 
> Economic Stimulus Payment Information Center
> 
> Though it would be odd if your brother hadn't explained that part to you.
Click to expand...


Possible, but I don't think so.  That was the "Bush, let's borrow money from China and cut everyone a check and say it is a tax refund smoke and mirrors" stimulus program.  Most people bought Chinese made goods at Walmart with those checks.


----------



## zzzz

Theoretically you can receive up to $400 this year if you made the right amount last year by using the "*Making work pay*" credit. Even then you will still be eligible for Earned income credit. If you made less than $9350 last year you and you claim just yourself you will pay no taxes and get more back than you paid. Depending on where you fall in the table I beleive you can get back in excess of $500 more.


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a set of nationally agreed principles. This specific person made a comment - for which we have no context. How can anyone honestly debate it without context? *Emphasis on the word 'honestly'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least one poster on here agreed with the position.  That is why I responded to him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the thread title. If we start off from a dishonest point, how does anyone discuss the subject. Honesty is fundamental to legitimate discussion. Which is why I often mock the idea that USMB provides a platform for such debate. With the freedom that this board allows (and huge high five to Gunny and the team for that), the price we pay is to forego honesty.
Click to expand...


Again, my comments were directed to the appropriate people.  If other people want to jump on me for responding to the posts of actual posters on this thread, they should go back to the beginning and see what I was actually talking about.

I realize the thread title is disingenuous.  I was responding to a single poster who thought the idea of restricting votes to property owners was a good idea.


----------



## Bfgrn

JimH52 said:


> Tea Party: Dont Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com
> 
> Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!



Are you surprised?

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter


----------



## RDD_1210

So do I get multiple votes if I own multiple properties?


----------



## JimH52

California Girl said:


> Excuse me. Can I just point out that - absolutely nowhere in that quote from the TP Nation does it say anything about not letting renters vote. Not one. At least, not in the quote provided.
> 
> Heres a new Tea Party plank: Dont let renters vote.
> 
> 
> _The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasnt you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. *And that makes a lot of sense, because if youre a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.*_
> 
> Where in that quote does he say we should not allow renters to vote? Nowhere.



You are using the FOX No News reasoning again.  How does it feel to live under a rock?


----------



## Bfgrn

Forget stopping them from voting...stop feeding them...the will BREED!

South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, who hopes to succeed fellow Republican Mark Sanford as his state's governor, drew a comparison between government help for poor people and "feeding stray animals"  who, he noted, "breed."

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals," Bauer said during a town hall meeting, as the Greenville News reported over the weekend. "You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."

S.C. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer Compares Helping Poor to Feeding Stray Animals - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world. In nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are conservatives.


----------



## Bfgrn

The 'TEA PARTY'...people who fashion themselves after the Boston tea party...are calling for revoking people's voting rights, which would remove their right to choose REPRESENTATION... 

I sure hope the 'TEA PARTY' also call for these people to be exempt from TAXATION...


----------



## Sarah G

JimH52 said:


> Tea Party: Dont Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com
> 
> Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!



  They don't want any-freaking-body to vote.  Besides, the teapartiers probably have one big flop house they rent.  It'll never work.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know its possible to get a refund over and above what you paid in taxes even if you don't have kids. but you really really really don't make much money during the year in order to get it. same thing happened to me when i had my first job when i was 15.
> 
> 
> 
> How? My kids have been on the company payroll since they were old enough to empty the trash. They were always paid a low wage so they didn't get taxes deducted (other than FICA) and they never got a "refund" ...
Click to expand...


Ran the numbers. This year, if someone is single, makes $7,000 in a year they get back all they paid in plus $400 (making work work tax credit or something).

So yeah, zero taxes paid, plus a refund over and above what they paid. This year. 

Back when I was 15,  obviously this tax credit wasn't there, but it was going on 20 years ago. I may be misremembering, or there may have been a quirky tax credit then too.


----------



## SFC Ollie

This is absolutely hilarious. One person talks about agreeing with a 200 year old law and the Democrats go ape shit.

No one with any level of intelligence could possibly believe that we would ever go back to property owners only voting. Not only that but (and I could be wrong here) I seem to remember learning that one of the reasons for that stipulation way back when was because most property owners at the time were the more educated. Now if I'm remembering right (and I'm sure someone here will tell us) then this guys statement is even more screwed up.

Anyway, just wanted to thank you all for the laughs.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know its possible to get a refund over and above what you paid in taxes even if you don't have kids. but you really really really don't make much money during the year in order to get it. same thing happened to me when i had my first job when i was 15.
> 
> 
> 
> How? My kids have been on the company payroll since they were old enough to empty the trash. They were always paid a low wage so they didn't get taxes deducted (other than FICA) and they never got a "refund" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ran the numbers. This year, if someone is single, makes $7,000 in a year they get back all they paid in plus $400 (making work work tax credit or something).
> 
> So yeah, zero taxes paid, plus a refund over and above what they paid. This year.
> 
> Back when I was 15,  obviously this tax credit wasn't there, but it was going on 20 years ago. I may be misremembering, or there may have been a quirky tax credit then too.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've conceded that a special tax credit would do the trick. But this isn't business as usual and normally only those that overpay or qualify for EITC get a refund.

I'll rep you for running the numbers though.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How? My kids have been on the company payroll since they were old enough to empty the trash. They were always paid a low wage so they didn't get taxes deducted (other than FICA) and they never got a "refund" ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ran the numbers. This year, if someone is single, makes $7,000 in a year they get back all they paid in plus $400 (making work work tax credit or something).
> 
> So yeah, zero taxes paid, plus a refund over and above what they paid. This year.
> 
> Back when I was 15,  obviously this tax credit wasn't there, but it was going on 20 years ago. I may be misremembering, or there may have been a quirky tax credit then too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I've conceded that a special tax credit would do the trick. But this isn't business as usual and normally only those that overpay or qualify for EITC get a refund.
> 
> I'll rep you for running the numbers though.
Click to expand...


Thanks. 

I think the original point still stands though. Even without the special tax credit, this mythical guy would have gotten back 100% of what he paid in. Meaning he paid zero federal taxes outside of that bastard FICA.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ran the numbers. This year, if someone is single, makes $7,000 in a year they get back all they paid in plus $400 (making work work tax credit or something).
> 
> So yeah, zero taxes paid, plus a refund over and above what they paid. This year.
> 
> Back when I was 15,  obviously this tax credit wasn't there, but it was going on 20 years ago. I may be misremembering, or there may have been a quirky tax credit then too.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've conceded that a special tax credit would do the trick. But this isn't business as usual and normally only those that overpay or qualify for EITC get a refund.
> 
> I'll rep you for running the numbers though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I think the original point still stands though. Even without the special tax credit, this mythical guy would have gotten back 100% of what he paid in. Meaning he paid zero federal taxes outside of that bastard FICA.
Click to expand...

Was that the point? I thought the point was that he got money back even though he didn't pay in. I would have a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with the progressive tax system, though. Not really. But I'd rather see everyone taxed 10 percent of all income with no loopholes.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Ravi said:


> I'd rather see everyone taxed 10 percent of all income with no loopholes.



That'd be cool. FICA, medicaid included in that 10%.


----------



## Ravi

RadiomanATL said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather see everyone taxed 10 percent of all income with no loopholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That'd be cool. FICA, medicaid included in that 10%.
Click to expand...

If we are talking all income, it would probably be doable.

Sadly, I doubt the lobbyists will ever let it happen.


----------



## kwc57

Ravi said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've conceded that a special tax credit would do the trick. But this isn't business as usual and normally only those that overpay or qualify for EITC get a refund.
> 
> I'll rep you for running the numbers though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I think the original point still stands though. Even without the special tax credit, this mythical guy would have gotten back 100% of what he paid in. Meaning he paid zero federal taxes outside of that bastard FICA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was that the point? I thought the point was that he got money back even though he didn't pay in. I would have a problem with that.
> 
> I don't have a problem with the progressive tax system, though. Not really. But I'd rather see everyone taxed 10 percent of all income with no loopholes.
Click to expand...


The point was that in addition to receiving back any taxes he had paid in for the year, he received additional money.  Therefore, he paid no taxes since he received them back in full.......and received additional money that from other people's taxes.  This is wealth redistribution.  Taking money from someone who worked for it and giving it to someone who didn't.  It exists and it is wrong.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/151642-tea-party-dont-let-renters-vote-4.html#post3234564


----------



## TheNewQueen

The fact is people who own their own homes are more responsible, smarter and cleaner living type of people.  A home owner is less likely to be a drunk or to do drugs.  Most home owners tend to have well behaved Christian familys who are more responsible thinkers than people who rent and jump from job to job.  Drunk and stoned hippies shouldn't be allowed to vote!


----------



## SFC Ollie

TheNewQueen said:


> The fact is people who own their own homes are more responsible, smarter and cleaner living type of people.  A home owner is less likely to be a drunk or to do drugs.  Most home owners tend to have well behaved Christian family who are more responsible thinkers people who rent and jump from job to job.  Drunk and stoned hippies shouldn't be allowed to vote!



I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.

Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?


----------



## JScott

TheNewQueen said:


> The fact is people who own their own homes are more responsible, smarter and cleaner living type of people.  A home owner is less likely to be a drunk or to do drugs.  Most home owners tend to have well behaved Christian familys who are more responsible thinkers than people who rent and jump from job to job.  Drunk and stoned hippies shouldn't be allowed to vote!



Most of what you posted is pure generalizations.


----------



## California Girl

Sarah G said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party: Don&#8217;t Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com
> 
> Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't want any-freaking-body to vote.  Besides, the teapartiers probably have one big flop house they rent.  It'll never work.
Click to expand...


Mo chara, nobody said not to let renters vote. True that. It's a headline.... it's not fact. All you have is a quote, with no context, of one person (one.... not the TEA Parties, just one person)... and he said

&#8220;The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn&#8217;t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. *Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today.* But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you&#8217;re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you&#8217;re not a property owner, you know, I&#8217;m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.&#8221;

Where in that quote (for which we have no context... ie we don't know what he was responding to).... does he say 'the TEA Party wants to remove the right of renters to vote'? 

Fact. He does not say it. This whole thing is bullshit in order to make idiots think something that is not true. Happens a lot.

*I have highlighted the salient part for the terminally stupid. Sarah G is NOT one of the terminally stupid.


----------



## TheNewQueen

SFC Ollie said:


> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is people who own their own homes are more responsible, smarter and cleaner living type of people.  A home owner is less likely to be a drunk or to do drugs.  Most home owners tend to have well behaved Christian family who are more responsible thinkers people who rent and jump from job to job.  Drunk and stoned hippies shouldn't be allowed to vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.
> 
> Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?
Click to expand...


Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.

What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.


----------



## JScott

TheNewQueen said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is people who own their own homes are more responsible, smarter and cleaner living type of people.  A home owner is less likely to be a drunk or to do drugs.  Most home owners tend to have well behaved Christian family who are more responsible thinkers people who rent and jump from job to job.  Drunk and stoned hippies shouldn't be allowed to vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.
> 
> Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
Click to expand...


Im no Christian and I paid off my house 10 years early. Global warming is happening whether you believe or not. I dont care about the owl at this moment.

You have cable TV? You have a cell phone?


----------



## California Girl

TheNewQueen said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is people who own their own homes are more responsible, smarter and cleaner living type of people.  A home owner is less likely to be a drunk or to do drugs.  Most home owners tend to have well behaved Christian family who are more responsible thinkers people who rent and jump from job to job.  Drunk and stoned hippies shouldn't be allowed to vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.
> 
> Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
Click to expand...


Emma, you are an idiot.


----------



## SFC Ollie

TheNewQueen said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is people who own their own homes are more responsible, smarter and cleaner living type of people.  A home owner is less likely to be a drunk or to do drugs.  Most home owners tend to have well behaved Christian family who are more responsible thinkers people who rent and jump from job to job.  Drunk and stoned hippies shouldn't be allowed to vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.
> 
> Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
Click to expand...


OK, go tell your mother she wants you.


----------



## Retread Ol' 37

TheNewQueen said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is people who own their own homes are more responsible, smarter and cleaner living type of people.  A home owner is less likely to be a drunk or to do drugs.  Most home owners tend to have well behaved Christian family who are more responsible thinkers people who rent and jump from job to job.  Drunk and stoned hippies shouldn't be allowed to vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.
> 
> Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
Click to expand...


Well, those Catholic priests were very Christian-like when they slept with the little boys weren't they?

Please share your other silly litmus tests with the coffee clatch.


----------



## Retread Ol' 37

California Girl said:


> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.
> 
> Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emma, you are an idiot.
Click to expand...


Actually I think she's a brilliant comedienne! I've no reason to think Rebecca believes the things she types.


----------



## TheNewQueen

JScott said:


> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.
> 
> Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have cable TV? You have a cell phone?
Click to expand...


No I don't


----------



## California Girl

TheNewQueen said:


> JScott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have cable TV? You have a cell phone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't
Click to expand...


Your parents are cruel! Does becky have a cell phone?


----------



## TheNewQueen

California Girl said:


> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.
> 
> Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emma, you are an idiot.
Click to expand...


Excuse me Betty Lou but why do you think my name is Emma?


----------



## Retread Ol' 37

TheNewQueen said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma, you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me Betty Lou but why do you think my name is Emma?
Click to expand...


Because that was your old handle here, Rebecca.

Now again, why don't you share your other litmus tests for voting? Do we have to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior? Do we need to be Pentecostals? Must we own a home and pay at least 50 percent of the principal and have proof of such before we are eligible to vote? Must we submit to a drug test at the polling place? Please share, I am fascinated to know how a Ritalin junkie views society.


----------



## California Girl

TheNewQueen said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma, you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me Betty Lou but why do you think my name is Emma?
Click to expand...


Because you are... or are you claiming multiple personality disorder?


----------



## Retread Ol' 37

Oddball said:


> Yup...
> 
> Voting for tenants was at the state and local levels, where the had their say-so in the makeup of the Senate (pre-17th Amendment).
> 
> If you have nothing to lose, you should have no say-so in policy, anyways.



So tenants never pay sales taxes and income taxes?

You really don't think through what you type do you?


----------



## Retread Ol' 37

California Girl said:


> Excuse me. Can I just point out that - absolutely nowhere in that quote from the TP Nation does it say anything about not letting renters vote. Not one. At least, not in the quote provided.
> 
> Heres a new Tea Party plank: Dont let renters vote.
> 
> 
> _The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasnt you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if youre a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
> _
> 
> Where in that quote does he say we should not allow renters to vote? Nowhere.



Does it explicitly say we should go back to that restriction? No. Does it suggest that such a restriction was justified and might be a good idea to reconsider? I think it does.


----------



## saveliberty

TheNewQueen said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma, you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me Betty Lou but why do you think my name is Emma?
Click to expand...


Because your not clever enough to post in a different style or mind set from Emma, Emma.


----------



## saveliberty

As long as renters have established residency and meet all the other qualificaitons I see no problem.  I'm kind of a fan of just one voter registration card though.


----------



## Retread Ol' 37

TheNewQueen said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma, you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me Betty Lou but why do you think my name is Emma?
Click to expand...


Here's a litl. tr011in' advise for u. U see, dis here is amateur, for realz, but I l00k just a bit like a n00b who ain't quyte me, yeah? U should change ur style, ur game, ur FRONT! Front it, bitch! Git low!


----------



## California Girl

Retread Ol' 37 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me. Can I just point out that - absolutely nowhere in that quote from the TP Nation does it say anything about not letting renters vote. Not one. At least, not in the quote provided.
> 
> Heres a new Tea Party plank: Dont let renters vote.
> 
> 
> _The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasnt you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if youre a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
> _
> 
> Where in that quote does he say we should not allow renters to vote? Nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it explicitly say we should go back to that restriction? No. Does it suggest that such a restriction was justified and might be a good idea to reconsider? I think it does.
Click to expand...


Does it? How do we know that? We have no context for the comment. We have only the comment. It depends on what led to the comment. You see that right? This happens constantly in the media.... which is exactly why I do not consider the media a reliable source. We don't know what he was responding to and how that topic came about. However, he makes a valid point... I don't agree with taking away the right of any citizen to vote.... but he's still right... owners have a vested interest in the community that renters do not.


----------



## Retread Ol' 37

California Girl said:


> Retread Ol' 37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me. Can I just point out that - absolutely nowhere in that quote from the TP Nation does it say anything about not letting renters vote. Not one. At least, not in the quote provided.
> 
> Heres a new Tea Party plank: Dont let renters vote.
> 
> 
> _The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasnt you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if youre a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
> _
> 
> Where in that quote does he say we should not allow renters to vote? Nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it explicitly say we should go back to that restriction? No. Does it suggest that such a restriction was justified and might be a good idea to reconsider? I think it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it? How do we know that? We have no context for the comment. We have only the comment. It depends on what led to the comment. You see that right? This happens constantly in the media.... which is exactly why I do not consider the media a reliable source. We don't know what he was responding to and how that topic came about. However, he makes a valid point... I don't agree with taking away the right of any citizen to vote.... but he's still right... owners have a vested interest in the community that renters do not.
Click to expand...


There might be some context to it. I'm just taking it as it stands, admittedly, and noting that I have in fact heard several people argue for this in real-life conversations as well as over the Interwebs, so I know there are people who think this way.

As Dagoose said earlier in this thread though, even if we're renters, we end up paying that property tax through increased rents. The only way I can see someone avoiding that "vested interest" is if they're homeless or on publicly subsidized housing.


----------



## California Girl

Retread Ol' 37 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retread Ol' 37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it explicitly say we should go back to that restriction? No. Does it suggest that such a restriction was justified and might be a good idea to reconsider? I think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it? How do we know that? We have no context for the comment. We have only the comment. It depends on what led to the comment. You see that right? This happens constantly in the media.... which is exactly why I do not consider the media a reliable source. We don't know what he was responding to and how that topic came about. However, he makes a valid point... I don't agree with taking away the right of any citizen to vote.... but he's still right... owners have a vested interest in the community that renters do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There might be some context to it. I'm just taking it as it stands, admittedly, and noting that I have in fact heard several people argue for this in real-life conversations as well as over the Interwebs, so I know there are people who think this way.
> 
> As Dagoose said earlier in this thread though, even if we're renters, we end up paying that property tax through increased rents. The only way I can see someone avoiding that "vested interest" is if they're homeless or on publicly subsidized housing.
Click to expand...


How can you take it without context? Without context, there is no depth to the comment. I could, very easily, go find one of your old posts and, by removing the context of the posts before and after it.... make it look completely different to what you were actually saying. You understand that, right? 

Further, even without context, the headline is bullshit and he did not say he agreed with it. In fact, quite the opposite. He acknowledged that it would not be right to do it. In short, it is bullshit about nothing. Because he didn't say it.


----------



## Ravi

TheNewQueen said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is people who own their own homes are more responsible, smarter and cleaner living type of people.  A home owner is less likely to be a drunk or to do drugs.  Most home owners tend to have well behaved Christian family who are more responsible thinkers people who rent and jump from job to job.  Drunk and stoned hippies shouldn't be allowed to vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.
> 
> Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote?  Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY!  Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
Click to expand...

 You are one funny troll.


----------



## editec

TheNewQueen said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheNewQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is people who own their own homes are more responsible, smarter and cleaner living type of people. A home owner is less likely to be a drunk or to do drugs. Most home owners tend to have well behaved Christian family who are more responsible thinkers people who rent and jump from job to job. Drunk and stoned hippies shouldn't be allowed to vote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have pissed off many people on the net because of my stance against drug use. But, sorry, they still have the same right to vote that I have and I would not deny them that.
> 
> Now what the fuck does religion have to do with home ownership or voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that retards should be able to vote? Drunk and stoned people are just temporary retards.
> 
> What religion has to do with home ownership and voting is RESPONSIBILITY! Christians are responsible people because they work hard to own a home and don't waste their time on stupid crap like Global Warming and saving the spotted owls.
Click to expand...

 

What an amazingly hateful POV.

Jesus would be so proud.


----------



## Terral

Hi Jim:



JimH52 said:


> Tea Party: Don&#8217;t Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com
> 
> Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!



The right to vote is meaningless when all sides are corrupt and bought-and-paid-for by corporate fascists destroying America on purpose. Here we have a Department of Homeland Security like Nazi Germany under Hitler 'and' 20 million goddamned Illegal Aliens running around loose EVERYWHERE stealing identities and jobs from real Americans. Bush and Obama are two sides of the same fascist coin and any replacement you find will sing the same song of corruption and lawlessness and bailouts for their fascist bankster buddies. So, you have the right to vote for bankster politician A or bankster politician B. 

GL,

Terral


----------



## SFC Ollie

Oh God, is this clown back again?


----------



## MarcATL

California Girl said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...
> 
> Voting for tenants was at the state and local levels, where the had their say-so in the makeup of the Senate (pre-17th Amendment).
> 
> If you have nothing to lose, you should have no say-so in policy, anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fucking absurd.
> 
> My wife and I rent as we are both in professional school.  As I am finishing medical school and don't know where I will be for residency in 18 months, buying a house would be the most fiscally irresponsible move we could make at this point.
> 
> Six years ago at this time, I was in Afghanistan serving my nation.
> 
> I don't deserve a say in public policy because I don't own property?  Owning property is the litmus test now?  That's as fucking stupid as people who say that only veterans should be able to vote.
> 
> You guys really should run with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are aware, are you not, that the title is somewhat disingenuous.... The TEA Parties have not said it, nor is it a principle of the TEA Parties. One guy made a comment, for which we have not context... and.... he did NOT say that renters should not be allowed to vote.
> 
> This is, again, a made up piece of shit.... and, again, instead of asking questions, people just assume it's accurate and rant.
> 
> Critical thinking - it is your friend.
Click to expand...

You are aware, are you not, that GTG was responding directly to OddBall's radical claim that renters shouldn't be able to vote because they have no stake in the game.


----------



## California Girl

MarcATL said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fucking absurd.
> 
> My wife and I rent as we are both in professional school.  As I am finishing medical school and don't know where I will be for residency in 18 months, buying a house would be the most fiscally irresponsible move we could make at this point.
> 
> Six years ago at this time, I was in Afghanistan serving my nation.
> 
> I don't deserve a say in public policy because I don't own property?  Owning property is the litmus test now?  That's as fucking stupid as people who say that only veterans should be able to vote.
> 
> You guys really should run with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are aware, are you not, that the title is somewhat disingenuous.... The TEA Parties have not said it, nor is it a principle of the TEA Parties. One guy made a comment, for which we have not context... and.... he did NOT say that renters should not be allowed to vote.
> 
> This is, again, a made up piece of shit.... and, again, instead of asking questions, people just assume it's accurate and rant.
> 
> Critical thinking - it is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are aware, are you not, that GTG was responding directly to OddBall's radical claim that renters shouldn't be able to vote because they have no stake in the game.
Click to expand...


I am aware of that. Thanks. I'm also aware that the title of the article claiming that the TEA Parties advocate removing the right to vote from renters is bullshit. Are you aware of that? Do you understand that the individual quoted did not, in fact, say that. And, are you aware that the quote has no context? Do you understand why context is important?


----------



## beowolfe

Like I said, the Tea Baggers are America's best hope for returning to the 19th century.


----------



## California Girl

beowolfe said:


> Like I said, the Tea Baggers are America's best hope for returning to the 19th century.



And you would be right.... but you are not. You are wrong, and, if you bother to read the actual quote and think critically about it.... the TEA Parties have not said that renters should not be allowed to vote. It is, yet again, fucking bullshit.


----------



## Sallow

California Girl said:


> Excuse me. Can I just point out that - absolutely nowhere in that quote from the TP Nation does it say anything about not letting renters vote. Not one. At least, not in the quote provided.
> 
> Heres a new Tea Party plank: Dont let renters vote.
> 
> 
> _The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasnt you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if youre a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
> _
> 
> Where in that quote does he say we should not allow renters to vote? Nowhere.



The whole quote says it.


----------



## California Girl

Sallow said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me. Can I just point out that - absolutely nowhere in that quote from the TP Nation does it say anything about not letting renters vote. Not one. At least, not in the quote provided.
> 
> Heres a new Tea Party plank: Dont let renters vote.
> 
> 
> _The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasnt you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if youre a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
> _
> 
> Where in that quote does he say we should not allow renters to vote? Nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole quote says it.
Click to expand...


No it does not. Particularly since he clarified it with 'obviously would not think about that today. Furthermore, we have no context for the quote, ie was it in response to a specific question about that particular subject, etc. Without context, one cannot justifiably state that this is a valid point or not. I am, however, unsurprised that the unthinking will take it as something it is not.


----------



## Sallow

California Girl said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me. Can I just point out that - absolutely nowhere in that quote from the TP Nation does it say anything about not letting renters vote. Not one. At least, not in the quote provided.
> 
> Heres a new Tea Party plank: Dont let renters vote.
> 
> 
> _The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasnt you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if youre a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If youre not a property owner, you know, Im sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
> _
> 
> Where in that quote does he say we should not allow renters to vote? Nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole quote says it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not. Particularly since he clarified it with 'obviously would not think about that today. Furthermore, we have no context for the quote, ie was it in response to a specific question about that particular subject, etc. Without context, one cannot justifiably state that this is a valid point or not. I am, however, unsurprised that the unthinking will take it as something it is not.
Click to expand...


Sure it does.

And why bring it up?

The founders didn't let any non-white male property owners..vote.

Do these people want to go back to that?


----------



## California Girl

Sallow said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole quote says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not. Particularly since he clarified it with 'obviously would not think about that today. Furthermore, we have no context for the quote, ie was it in response to a specific question about that particular subject, etc. Without context, one cannot justifiably state that this is a valid point or not. I am, however, unsurprised that the unthinking will take it as something it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> And why bring it up?
> 
> The founders didn't let any non-white male property owners..vote.
> 
> Do these people want to go back to that?
Click to expand...


That's actually my point. Why was it brought up? We have no context as to how the comment was made, so we cannot judge it as one thing or another. What we can say, without doubt, is that he very clearly stated that it would not be something acceptable today. You can ignore those words if you want, but I choose honesty over spin.


----------



## Sallow

California Girl said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not. Particularly since he clarified it with 'obviously would not think about that today. Furthermore, we have no context for the quote, ie was it in response to a specific question about that particular subject, etc. Without context, one cannot justifiably state that this is a valid point or not. I am, however, unsurprised that the unthinking will take it as something it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> And why bring it up?
> 
> The founders didn't let any non-white male property owners..vote.
> 
> Do these people want to go back to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's actually my point. Why was it brought up? We have no context as to how the comment was made, so we cannot judge it as one thing or another. What we can say, without doubt, is that he very clearly stated that it would not be something acceptable today. You can ignore those words if you want, but I choose honesty over spin.
Click to expand...


The "context" is it seems to be a thing among Conservatives to limit the right to vote. Heck..they don't even consider it a "right". And this is a well worn "issue" that shouldn't even be an issue. It is the responsibility of every American Citizen to participate in the Government..and I don't care what your political affliation happens to be.

It should be a law that everyone votes..like Jury Duty.


----------



## Momanohedhunter

Ravi said:


> Renters don't have a vested interest in their community?
> 
> What next, the teapartiers wanting to take the vote away from women and blacks?



and Mexicans, Muslims, the Chinese and any non white male with less then 5,000,000 in the bank.


----------



## jasonmorston

no what he means is that statistics-wise more do. so by eliminateing this group en mass his target is greatly weakened. similar to the florida elections. it used to be (as per athenian democracy) that you had to be a landed white male to vote. this is a regressive step back to the proto-democracies which were in reality plutocracies or oligarchies. (see HG wells in his historical outline)


----------



## California Girl

Sallow said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> And why bring it up?
> 
> The founders didn't let any non-white male property owners..vote.
> 
> Do these people want to go back to that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually my point. Why was it brought up? We have no context as to how the comment was made, so we cannot judge it as one thing or another. What we can say, without doubt, is that he very clearly stated that it would not be something acceptable today. You can ignore those words if you want, but I choose honesty over spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "context" is it seems to be a thing among Conservatives to limit the right to vote. Heck..they don't even consider it a "right". And this is a well worn "issue" that shouldn't even be an issue. It is the responsibility of every American Citizen to participate in the Government..and I don't care what your political affliation happens to be.
> 
> It should be a law that everyone votes..like Jury Duty.
Click to expand...


You don't know the 'context' because the article has not provided the 'context'. Therefore, we do not know whether it was in response to a specific question or comment about the issue. Without that 'context' (which is actually vital to really understand the comment), it is spin. Surely you are smart enough to understand that basic fact?


----------



## jasonmorston

no. voting cannot be mandatory. that merely validates corrupt systems like ours by giving legitamacy to a total hack. if you have two choices that both suck with mandatory voting the lesser evil winning APPEARS to have popular consent. the lack of voting accurately shows a lack of faith in the system


----------



## California Girl

This thread is a great example of how a lack of 'critical thinking' affects a person's view of what they read.


----------



## SFC Ollie

California Girl said:


> This thread is a great example of how a lack of 'critical thinking' affects a person's view of what they read.



I can't figure out what some of these people think they are reading......


----------



## California Girl

SFC Ollie said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is a great example of how a lack of 'critical thinking' affects a person's view of what they read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out what some of these people think they are reading......
Click to expand...


To be honest, nor can I. It seems very obvious to me that we should question the context of the comment, and read the actual words and not what we think the person said. Sadly, it appears that these basic steps are beyond the intellectual capabilities of some posters.


----------



## edthecynic

Ravi said:


> Renters don't have a vested interest in their community?
> 
> What next, the teapartiers wanting to take the vote away from women and blacks?


They are already laying the groundwork of blame for what ails this great country on the women's vote!!!

August 8, 2008
RUSH:   Now we're told the night Hillary speaks is the anniversary of *women getting the vote, which is what started the welfare state that now strangles us*, by the way.  *If women had never gotten the vote we wouldn't have a budget deficit,* but that's another story.


----------



## California Girl

edthecynic said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Renters don't have a vested interest in their community?
> 
> What next, the teapartiers wanting to take the vote away from women and blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> They are already laying the groundwork of blame for what ails this great country on the women's vote!!!
> 
> August 8, 2008
> RUSH:   Now we're told the night Hillary speaks is the anniversary of *women getting the vote, which is what started the welfare state that now strangles us*, by the way.  *If women had never gotten the vote we wouldn't have a budget deficit,* but that's another story.
Click to expand...


Classic lefty spin!  You're too fucking funny, ed. You claim the status of 'cynic' and show absolutely no cynicism towards the left.... only the right. Some fucking 'cynic'.


----------



## edthecynic

California Girl said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Renters don't have a vested interest in their community?
> 
> What next, the teapartiers wanting to take the vote away from women and blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> They are already laying the groundwork of blame for what ails this great country on the women's vote!!!
> 
> August 8, 2008
> RUSH:   Now we're told the night Hillary speaks is the anniversary of *women getting the vote, which is what started the welfare state that now strangles us*, by the way.  *If women had never gotten the vote we wouldn't have a budget deficit,* but that's another story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Classic lefty spin!  You're too fucking funny, ed. You claim the status of 'cynic' and show absolutely no cynicism towards the left.... only the right. Some fucking 'cynic'.
Click to expand...

Show me where the Left blames America's problems on a woman's right to vote and I'll gladly bash them for their woman-hating also.

August 29, 2008
PALIN:  To serve as vice president beside such a man would be the privilege of a lifetime, and it's fitting that this trust has been given to me 88 years -- almost to the day -- after *the women of America first gained the right to vote.*  (cheers and applause)

RUSH:  Right on, right on, right on.  *They also gave us the welfare state*, but that's (grumbles).


----------



## California Girl

edthecynic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are already laying the groundwork of blame for what ails this great country on the women's vote!!!
> 
> August 8, 2008
> RUSH:   Now we're told the night Hillary speaks is the anniversary of *women getting the vote, which is what started the welfare state that now strangles us*, by the way.  *If women had never gotten the vote we wouldn't have a budget deficit,* but that's another story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classic lefty spin!  You're too fucking funny, ed. You claim the status of 'cynic' and show absolutely no cynicism towards the left.... only the right. Some fucking 'cynic'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where the Left blames America's problems on a woman's right to vote and I'll gladly bash them for their woman-hating also.
> 
> August 29, 2008
> PALIN:  To serve as vice president beside such a man would be the privilege of a lifetime, and it's fitting that this trust has been given to me 88 years -- almost to the day -- after *the women of America first gained the right to vote.*  (cheers and applause)
> 
> RUSH:  Right on, right on, right on.  *They also gave us the welfare state*, but that's (grumbles).
Click to expand...


The subject of this thread is the quote about renters, not Rush or Palin or anyone else's opinion on female voters. You're moving of the goal posts is purely because you do not want to say 'Yea, I can see why I'm wrong about that' on the topic. Spin away. You make yourself look foolish.


----------



## saveliberty

Wisconsin union members - Don't let elected officals vote.


----------



## sinister59

JimH52 said:


> Tea Party: Dont Let Renters Vote - CBS MoneyWatch.com
> 
> Yeah, that will take those low life, low income Democrats out of the equasion!



a californian republican back in 2001 or 2 said the average person is to stupid to vote and only should be for educated and rich .


----------



## freedombecki

I don't believe Conservatives in the Tea Party believe in taking away other people's votes.

And I think this thread belongs in the Conspiracy theory and birth certificate speculation area because of it.

Or is this one of those forums where only the liberals can get away with it, but the conservatives can't due to situational room bias?


----------

