Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I do know history seems you do not or you would not post irrelevant distractive trollishness
It is actually quite relevant. It shows that the founding fathers were not concerned about HOW MUCH they were taxed, but about the lack of representation in their being taxed.
You HAVE representation, so your argument is bogus.
wrong as usual representation would mean obamacare/tax would not have passed,
It is actually quite relevant. It shows that the founding fathers were not concerned about HOW MUCH they were taxed, but about the lack of representation in their being taxed.
You HAVE representation, so your argument is bogus.
wrong as usual representation would mean obamacare/tax would not have passed,
WTF? Are you being willfully obstinate or are you really that stupid?
If 100 vote for 2 candidates, one for obamacare and one against, and 99 people vote for the one that is for obamacare, are you saying the remaining one did not have representation?? Are you that goofy?
Representation does not mean you always get your way.
I laugh at your limited ability to comprehend that the founders knew how the people would vote. Guess what they were correct. Hell the founders feared a democracy.
Now care to explain how is state legislators voting for U.S. senators to prevent the people from voting stupid supporting big government?
After-all it was their intent and the 17th amendment messed it up for the country.
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that it is only big gov't if it is federal. Yet at the same time you demean CA & NY as big gov't states.
When you remove the people from the selection process, you have the gov't making decisions that should be in the hands of the population.
laboring? wishful thinking doesn't make it so
when you add low information voters to the mix you get the abusive government of today.
You get obama and company.
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that it is only big gov't if it is federal. Yet at the same time you demean CA & NY as big gov't states.
When you remove the people from the selection process, you have the gov't making decisions that should be in the hands of the population.
laboring? wishful thinking doesn't make it so
when you add low information voters to the mix you get the abusive government of today.
You get obama and company.
You are correct in the claim that uninformed voters give us problems. But that is not the same thing as claiming that the 17th amendment gave us big gov't or that having state reps deciding on senators is not big gov't.
laboring? wishful thinking doesn't make it so
when you add low information voters to the mix you get the abusive government of today.
You get obama and company.
You are correct in the claim that uninformed voters give us problems. But that is not the same thing as claiming that the 17th amendment gave us big gov't or that having state reps deciding on senators is not big gov't.
The founders wanted senators to be elected at the state level for a reason, we now see why that reason was.
The blotted welfare state we have now.
They also feared a democracy
wrong as usual representation would mean obamacare/tax would not have passed,
WTF? Are you being willfully obstinate or are you really that stupid?
If 100 vote for 2 candidates, one for obamacare and one against, and 99 people vote for the one that is for obamacare, are you saying the remaining one did not have representation?? Are you that goofy?
Representation does not mean you always get your way.
melt down on it's way
You are correct in the claim that uninformed voters give us problems. But that is not the same thing as claiming that the 17th amendment gave us big gov't or that having state reps deciding on senators is not big gov't.
The founders wanted senators to be elected at the state level for a reason, we now see why that reason was.
The blotted welfare state we have now.
They also feared a democracy
So you want the gov't to decide who represents you?? LMAO!!
WTF? Are you being willfully obstinate or are you really that stupid?
If 100 vote for 2 candidates, one for obamacare and one against, and 99 people vote for the one that is for obamacare, are you saying the remaining one did not have representation?? Are you that goofy?
Representation does not mean you always get your way.
melt down on it's way
Melt down? Hardly. I am laughing way to hard.
I thought you had said some ignorant things before, but claiming you had no representation because you didn't get your way may take the cake.
If you hire a lawyer to represent you in court, and you lose. Will you claim you did not have representation?
The founders wanted senators to be elected at the state level for a reason, we now see why that reason was.
The blotted welfare state we have now.
They also feared a democracy
So you want the gov't to decide who represents you?? LMAO!!
Once again you have missed it. Who elects the state legislators?
Who represents me? That is decided in the house of representatives for which I vote on.
Now
Who has better access to U.S. senators, a state legislator that selected them or the common everyday citizen?
And by the way insinuating something that isn't so is misleading, stop doing it.
melt down on it's way
Melt down? Hardly. I am laughing way to hard.
I thought you had said some ignorant things before, but claiming you had no representation because you didn't get your way may take the cake.
If you hire a lawyer to represent you in court, and you lose. Will you claim you did not have representation?
yp since everybody likes to say someone is having a meltdown , thought I would throw that in the mix.
Nice
And thank you, that post proves without a doubt you know nothing about Jefferson. Ayn Rand? God! You are fucking stupid. Just knowing about the Lewis and Clark expedition would make one realize he is nothing like Ayn Rand. Wow! Seriously stop! You are making yourself look like a complete idiot.
A man who set up public education, raised taxes, tripled the federal government could never be compared to Ayn Rand.
Go away, you are drunk.
Too bad littlereb cannot provide anything credible to substantiate that absurdly false allegation.
You are correct in the claim that uninformed voters give us problems. But that is not the same thing as claiming that the 17th amendment gave us big gov't or that having state reps deciding on senators is not big gov't.
The founders wanted senators to be elected at the state level for a reason, we now see why that reason was.
The blotted welfare state we have now.
They also feared a democracy
So you want the gov't to decide who represents you?? LMAO!!
The problem is, there aren't tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of "Lucy"s out there.
I do not think you believe that.
I am pretty sure that I do. I understand that there are plenty of people who draw welfare. I also understand that there is a very small percentage that abuse the system. But the number of lies that have been told to exaggerate the problem (like Reagan's Welfare Queen) is insane.
Debunking the Top 6 Welfare Myths - National Social Issues | Examiner.com
"For starters, the vast majority of people collecting any kind of temporary assistance, including reemployment assistance, receive benefits for less than two years. While two years is far from ideal, it hardly supports the picture of third- and fourth-generation welfare recipients refusing to work and living the high life off of a few hundred dollars each month. The troubling truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people receiving Medicaid, SNAP, and other kinds of financial assistance already have a job."
What The Right Doesn't Want You To Know About Welfare: 9 Myths Exploded -
"According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less."
Welfare Statistics | Statistic Brain
Poverty In America: Myths About Welfare Recipients « CBS Charlotte
I do know history seems you do not or you would not post irrelevant distractive trollishness
It is actually quite relevant. It shows that the founding fathers were not concerned about HOW MUCH they were taxed, but about the lack of representation in their being taxed.
You HAVE representation, so your argument is bogus.
wrong as usual representation would mean obamacare/tax would not have passed,
laboring? wishful thinking doesn't make it so
when you add low information voters to the mix you get the abusive government of today.
You get obama and company.
You are correct in the claim that uninformed voters give us problems. But that is not the same thing as claiming that the 17th amendment gave us big gov't or that having state reps deciding on senators is not big gov't.
The founders wanted senators to be elected at the state level for a reason, we now see why that reason was.
The blotted welfare state we have now.
They also feared a democracy
So you want the gov't to decide who represents you?? LMAO!!
Once again you have missed it. Who elects the state legislators?
Who represents me? That is decided in the house of representatives for which I vote on.
Now
Who has better access to U.S. senators, a state legislator that selected them or the common everyday citizen?
And by the way insinuating something that isn't so is misleading, stop doing it.
You want a governmental middleman to decide who represents you?
And you have a lot of gall to complain about someone insinuating something that is so. Considering you try and compare your pouting about a piece of legislation to the founding fathers fighting against taxation without representation.
You are correct in the claim that uninformed voters give us problems. But that is not the same thing as claiming that the 17th amendment gave us big gov't or that having state reps deciding on senators is not big gov't.
The founders wanted senators to be elected at the state level for a reason, we now see why that reason was.
The blotted welfare state we have now.
They also feared a democracy
Deceleration alert!
It is actually quite relevant. It shows that the founding fathers were not concerned about HOW MUCH they were taxed, but about the lack of representation in their being taxed.
You HAVE representation, so your argument is bogus.
wrong as usual representation would mean obamacare/tax would not have passed,
I'm not really one for belittling others, but you are quite stupid. In the context of being represented, we are basically talking about having a vote. The founding fathers had NO vote in how their tax dollars were being spent by the British government. Which at the time was pretty standard, the King levied taxes and the King decided how to spend those taxes. The colonials didn't like that system and thus formed a Republic where every man got a vote, which is NOT to say that every man got his way on every issue.
Did you have the opportunity to vote? Then you were represented.
