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.
Under democracy we hire and fire our representatives in government. We don't get to hire and fire our Constitution.
Actually retard, that would be a Republic - under a democracy, you could indeed "fire" the constitution and all rights therein.
{The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.}
James Madison, Federalist #10
I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"
But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.
Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?
Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
There is, and never will be, anything fair about our tax system. It needs a complete overhaul.
I would prefer a nice neat national sales tax, 10% at the retail level. You buy it you pay taxes on it. I would exempt food,utilities,housing costs and tax every other purchase.
If you buy a vehicle/ship/plane out of the country and bring it into the US you pay the tax when you license it same as currently if you buy a vehicle out of state.
No deductions, no loop holes, no exemptions beyond the 3 listed. Simple and done.
I know the popular whine is that that tax hurts the poor more than the rich, but I say too bad. It's just like dining out, if you can't afford the tip, stick to McDonalds, same thing here, if you can't afford the 10% tax, don't buy it.
As an added bonus , the iRS would need to be about 1/5th of it's current size.
What is "fair" about a system that lets people collect a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes?
What is "fair" about a system that allows rich people to spend tens of thousands of dollars to someone who's entire job is to make sure their clients pay as little in taxes on their millions in income as possible?
Nothing, that's what.
But fairness doesn't mean anything. Look at you. Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving. WTF?
Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?
You need a copy of Asshole from RosettaStone in order to understand this fool.
Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?
Yes.
It failed rather spectacularly.
How much so you want YOUR opinion to matter?
Proposals must pass the muster of the State Supreme Court.
California uses Proposals all the time.
And as you just stated yourself, no matter how much freedom you think you have as deemed by the Federal and State Constitutions, in the end it comes down to ideologues in robes.
So to be concrete, would you eliminate Judicial Review?
Do you mean "propositions," sparky?
What you are trying to say, idiot, is that in the English language a republic is a country without a monarch, and the best example if a democracy is the US where all critical decisions are made by majority rule.
The fact that you don't know simple English definitions is a measure of your unamericanism and addiction to conservative media.
Actually, shit fer brains, I let James Madison do the talking.What you are trying to say, idiot, is that in the English language a republic is a country without a monarch, and the best example if a democracy is the US where all critical decisions are made by majority rule.
The fact that you don't know simple English definitions is a measure of your unamericanism and addiction to conservative media.
HAD you read his words, instead of again running to ThinkProgress for orders, you would have grasped that a Republic is a REPRESENTATIVE form of government where the people elect representatives to represent them.
Democracy is direct government by the people. Madison goes on to explain the folly in Athens where the people voted to execute four generals who had successfully repelled the Persian army. Naturally, they did not live to regret their decision when next the Persians invaded. Democracy is the purvey of the mob, whipped into frenzy by demagogues.
The reason you are a leftist is because you are stupid and uneducated, without a foundation in history, logic, and reason. So you turn to the demagogues on the hate sites to form your thoughts for you.
Actually, shit fer brains, I let James Madison do the talking.What you are trying to say, idiot, is that in the English language a republic is a country without a monarch, and the best example if a democracy is the US where all critical decisions are made by majority rule.
The fact that you don't know simple English definitions is a measure of your unamericanism and addiction to conservative media.
HAD you read his words, instead of again running to ThinkProgress for orders, you would have grasped that a Republic is a REPRESENTATIVE form of government where the people elect representatives to represent them.
Democracy is direct government by the people. Madison goes on to explain the folly in Athens where the people voted to execute four generals who had successfully repelled the Persian army. Naturally, they did not live to regret their decision when next the Persians invaded. Democracy is the purvey of the mob, whipped into frenzy by demagogues.
The reason you are a leftist is because you are stupid and uneducated, without a foundation in history, logic, and reason. So you turn to the demagogues on the hate sites to form your thoughts for you.
Madison first defines his talk on republics and democracies by differentiating "pure" democracys from Republics, "by which I mean" he says, those using the representation. The very fact that he has to do that shows it was not the common understanding. Indeed this is shown by Federalist #9 where Hamilton uses the same criticism of Republics as he has of Democracies. IN short, Madison was wrong.....but no matter, the Federalist papers are over-hyped today and probably were not even that well read at the time even in New York.
I will try and link a pic of one of the most learned of our Founders and how he defined the terms. See my pictures if doesnt link.
I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"
But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.
Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?
Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
There is, and never will be, anything fair about our tax system. It needs a complete overhaul.
I would prefer a nice neat national sales tax, 10% at the retail level. You buy it you pay taxes on it. I would exempt food,utilities,housing costs and tax every other purchase.
If you buy a vehicle/ship/plane out of the country and bring it into the US you pay the tax when you license it same as currently if you buy a vehicle out of state.
No deductions, no loop holes, no exemptions beyond the 3 listed. Simple and done.
I know the popular whine is that that tax hurts the poor more than the rich, but I say too bad. It's just like dining out, if you can't afford the tip, stick to McDonalds, same thing here, if you can't afford the 10% tax, don't buy it.
As an added bonus , the iRS would need to be about 1/5th of it's current size.
What is "fair" about a system that lets people collect a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes?
What is "fair" about a system that allows rich people to spend tens of thousands of dollars to someone who's entire job is to make sure their clients pay as little in taxes on their millions in income as possible?
Nothing, that's what.
"Fair" is in the same category as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, but conservatives never give up wanting to impose what's best for them, on others.
Yes.
It failed rather spectacularly.
I'll try shorter words and simpler sentences for you next time.
It failed rather spectacularly.
I'll try shorter words and simpler sentences for you next time.
Try clearer thought. Believe me, dumbing yourself down would require a rewriting of the laws of physics.
There is, and never will be, anything fair about our tax system. It needs a complete overhaul.
I would prefer a nice neat national sales tax, 10% at the retail level. You buy it you pay taxes on it. I would exempt food,utilities,housing costs and tax every other purchase.
If you buy a vehicle/ship/plane out of the country and bring it into the US you pay the tax when you license it same as currently if you buy a vehicle out of state.
No deductions, no loop holes, no exemptions beyond the 3 listed. Simple and done.
I know the popular whine is that that tax hurts the poor more than the rich, but I say too bad. It's just like dining out, if you can't afford the tip, stick to McDonalds, same thing here, if you can't afford the 10% tax, don't buy it.
As an added bonus , the iRS would need to be about 1/5th of it's current size.
What is "fair" about a system that lets people collect a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes?
What is "fair" about a system that allows rich people to spend tens of thousands of dollars to someone who's entire job is to make sure their clients pay as little in taxes on their millions in income as possible?
Nothing, that's what.
"Fair" is in the same category as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, but conservatives never give up wanting to impose what's best for them, on others.
Yeah, it's conservatives who blather on endlessly about "fair", and pass reams of ridiculously intrusive laws about what people can eat and drink and what kind of light bulbs and toilets they can buy.
Don't look now, Delusion Boy (If you're a girl, I don't care, just FYI), but Santa and the Easter Bunny just ran through whatever misty dimension you're inhabiting right now.
"Fair" is in the same category as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, but conservatives never give up wanting to impose what's best for them, on others.
Yeah, it's conservatives who blather on endlessly about "fair", and pass reams of ridiculously intrusive laws about what people can eat and drink and what kind of light bulbs and toilets they can buy.
Don't look now, Delusion Boy (If you're a girl, I don't care, just FYI), but Santa and the Easter Bunny just ran through whatever misty dimension you're inhabiting right now.
People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
Yeah, it's conservatives who blather on endlessly about "fair", and pass reams of ridiculously intrusive laws about what people can eat and drink and what kind of light bulbs and toilets they can buy.
Don't look now, Delusion Boy (If you're a girl, I don't care, just FYI), but Santa and the Easter Bunny just ran through whatever misty dimension you're inhabiting right now.
People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
If my kids fuck up then me and my family are responsible for them.
Not you and others.
People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
If my kids fuck up then me and my family are responsible for them.
Not you and others.
I agree. Then they grow up.
I'll try shorter words and simpler sentences for you next time.
Try clearer thought. Believe me, dumbing yourself down would require a rewriting of the laws of physics.
More insight into the massive intellect behind conservatism.
If I were equipped as you, I would seriously consider having others think for me too.
Try clearer thought. Believe me, dumbing yourself down would require a rewriting of the laws of physics.
More insight into the massive intellect behind conservatism.
If I were equipped as you, I would seriously consider having others think for me too.
Blither, blither, blither. You can keep trying to fling insults at me, vainly hoping to someday come out even, but it's never going to happen. Watching you get farther and farther behind is frankly not even entertaining any more. It's just vaguely depressing.
"Fair" is in the same category as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, but conservatives never give up wanting to impose what's best for them, on others.
Yeah, it's conservatives who blather on endlessly about "fair", and pass reams of ridiculously intrusive laws about what people can eat and drink and what kind of light bulbs and toilets they can buy.
Don't look now, Delusion Boy (If you're a girl, I don't care, just FYI), but Santa and the Easter Bunny just ran through whatever misty dimension you're inhabiting right now.
People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
More insight into the massive intellect behind conservatism.
If I were equipped as you, I would seriously consider having others think for me too.
Blither, blither, blither. You can keep trying to fling insults at me, vainly hoping to someday come out even, but it's never going to happen. Watching you get farther and farther behind is frankly not even entertaining any more. It's just vaguely depressing.
Exactly in what field are you ahead of me?
