Dad, I hate to say it, but as your surrogate Word Cop I must, in the interest of fairness, call you out on this.  You are correct that Pwilley is effectively calling for a poll or other tax that is un-Constitutional.  But he did not infer it, he implied it. You inferred it from what he implied.  I know you understand the difference, Dad.  Do I still get my allowance???  LOL!

voter suppression; let's cut the crap. You didn't like the way last POTUS election went & you're afraid of how the next one is gonna go.
That's why you're proposing this nonsense. If a person has valid U.S. photo ID, place of residence, & not a convicted felon, they're eligible to vote, period. But, since you live in Atlanta, let's bring back good ol days of Jim Crow poll taxes & literacy tests. Isn't that what you're really inferring ?

Speaking of your own tv show, I'm writing a script based on pic below------you wanna be the star of it ?

-- Modified on 11/12/2011 9:16:30 AM

would start a sentence with the word "but".

Your "word cop" credentials are hereby revoked.

you're quite correct & becoming as obnoxious
a pedant as me, NOT a good trait-----do as I say, not as I do.

I'm cutting your "gift" to $ 100--w/ that, find
a "truckstop provider" who probably looks like Ernest Borgnine, weighs 300 lbs & uses a walker----------------------LMFAO !

Are you really saying we need to have a kind of defacto poll tax?

Is the only way that government affects your life is when you have to pay a tax? Doesn't government represent EVERYBODY?

What's fair is that if you're subject to the decisions made by government, then you should have a say in who is running the government. Politicians make decisions about education, therefore minors should have the right to vote. Government makes decisions about welfare policies, therefore the poor should have the right to vote. Government makes decisions about social security, therefore seniors should have the right to vote.

and no, although I would like to claim my absence was a result of excessive drinking and chica fucking, alas it was only a matter of excessive drinking and the fucking of only one woman, and she a "chica americana" at that. lol

1.Be 18 years of age & over.

2. Be a U.S. citizen.

3. Have a valid photo ID

4. Have a place of residence.

5. Have NEVER been convicted of a felony ( most states give ex-felons the right to vote ).

You meet those 5 requirements & you're in.

 "But, I suspect your only positions will result in the 48% continuing to be on the take, with your liberal robin hoods more than willing to continue that path for them in exchange for their vote."

pw, you're kidding, right ?! NOBODY can be that stupid.

Btw, that Harvard Prof. should lecture you about grammar---there is NO apostrophe in the "possessive" form of "its" .

Numbnuts.







-- Modified on 11/12/2011 12:18:03 PM

Is it to enact policies that promote widespread sadism or is it to give the voters what they want?

So, been considering this a few minutes and in the interest of fairness, which I assume we all would say we believe in, ...

Shouldn't it be the case that in order for someone to be eligible to vote, they must have paid some amount of tax, even $1.00, toward the support of the government?  We've heard the liberal mantra about everyone should pay their fair share claiming that rich people don't.  Well, as long as we aim to try and fix that alleged disparity, let's fix this one too.  If you ain't paying "anything" you don't deserve a say in how it's run and thus cannot cast votes for those who will run it.

Fair is fair, right?

No more voter suppression than having a bunch of pink panthers with clubs outside the polling locatons in Philly....

My proposal requires someone to earn the right to vote by contributing.  Now, if you have a better alternative that results in requiring "everyone" to pay something, I'll listen.  But, I suspect your only positions will result in the 48% continuing to be on the take, with your liberal robin hoods more than willing to continue that path for them in exchange for their vote.  Pretty good gig if you can get it.

I once had a Harvard Prof tell us that if you ever want to "beat the system", all you have to do is play by all it's rules.  Maybe he was on to something.  How about if everyone stops working and paying any tax.  Who's gonna support the lazy ass folks then?

but my associates, TheCunningLinguist and ConanTheGrammarian inform me that your posts often contain mis-spellings and typos.  They have been lenient with you until now, but don't press your luck.  I might have to sic them on you, along with PriapusRetardedBrother. lol!
PS: I hope you've been having a good time but are now pulling all the spam posts that have showed up here while you were, I suppose, drinking to excess and banging chicas.

That's OK.  Pwilley has offered me a HJ at his glory hole for $25.  That leaves me $75 for the buffet, Dad!  LOL!

So, Willy and Pri, OK, pretty easy to take shots at the suggestions of others, libs are pretty good at that, just as they're pretty good at not offering any solutions of their own.

So, here is the deal.  How do you propose to prevent those on the government take from being in a position to re-elect those who advocate continuing to provide the money in handouts as their reward?  Or, is your position that this scenario is fine.  In other words, is the cycle of having those 48% continue to elect those who continue to welcome them being on the take?  Is that what you and Pri believe is the way it should be.  Nice cycle I guess if you're a free loader.  That leaves liberal victories just a mere few percent away if they simply find some issue to attract a few percent worth of indy's to make up the difference.  If you ask me, it's just plain government bribery funded by those who work, at the peril of those who work.

Sounds like another good excuse for yet a different kind of Occupy Movement to me.

So just to avoid misunderstanding, tell me again how you think it ought to be?

Only have one provider available today.  Goes by the name Ms. Wonker who happens to believe that handouts are free to those who aren't in the top 1% so you're in luck.

For people to have say in something they do not contribute to at all, well, there is a term for that

UN-AMERICAN!!!

He wants the "monied interests" to have more say at the ballot box, because he didn't like the outcome of the last election. If that's the case, this country will even go further in direction of "Corprtocracy" than a "representational democracy" or republic.
The SCOTUS "citizens united" decision was a large step in that direction.

What's next for ElGuano? Taking away the rights of blacks & women to vote & direct voting for U.S Senators ? Of all this was in place before 1920, which is where "batshit" wants to take us.

Dope.

He's so obtuse he doesn't "get irony", or much of anything else.

Jr, gotta realize, lotta dummies out there & bright types on this board don't cotton to that.
Because of that, predict Guano will take self imposed hiatus.

Now, here's 5 bills----go see a hot provider---

You need to get off the pipe and take a walk down reality street.

I am in favor of a representational vote.

Even the lowest dregs upon civilization get one vote, providing they are not disqualified. (Felons, etc)

For each $10,000 in taxes you pay in income taxes each year, you get another vote. (If I pay in $50,000 in taxes, I earn an extra 5 votes.)

Warren Buffet doesn't pay a lot in income taxes, according to him. He gets his appropriate amount of votes. If he wants MORE votes, he can pay MORE income taxes. Same with every other bleeding heart liberal.

That's FAIR.

You shouldn't be able to vote yourself someone elses money. Which is why this country is in such a financial mess.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." -- Alexander Tytler

That the rich complete their ownership of this country.  They could afford to buy lots of votes, while people of modest means could not.  Voter turnout in this country is already barely above 50%, so the problem is we have too few people voting, not too many.  So, no, you solution is not "FAIR."
Also, you have caught yourself in contradiction and don't even know it.  I don't know your political affiliation but from your posts you sound fairly right wing.  But doesn't the right want to reduce taxes and government revenues?  Your proposal would seem to encourage the opposite.  Thus, I deem your proposal pure, unadulterated Guano.

Another bogus "fact" from pwilley.  48% of voters are on the government take?  How's that?  Which orifice did you pull this "fact" from.  Please do back it up.  Or is it like some of the other "facts" you've been posting lately: your own right-wing fantasy.  Keep this up and your tattered credibility here will be totally shredded.

Think of all the rich limousine liberals who would want to gerrymander the political scene! Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and Barbra Streisand and George Clooney could buy millions of votes! All the while, our government would get cascades of money into its coffers.

BAM! Two birds with one stone.

I don't want ANY rich people owning our governmet more than they already do.  I don't care if it's the Koch brothers or Barbra Streisand.  It's not a good thing.  Get it?

... why should anyone who doesn't pay taxes tell me how much I should pay? That is what I don't get.

The non-stakeholders would still have a vote. The stakeholders would just have a greater ability to prevent the non-stakeholders from voting themselves someone elses wealth.

That is fair.

And what is even more fair is that the uber-liberals would have an opportunity to put THEIR money where THEIR mouth is.

how about some scratch for your retarded brother, too!  lol!