Official Debate Thread Round III

[Haiku]

OK I'm missing something here. I saw nothing different about Lowalcue's posted observations than anyone else. Why the sensitivity? Is there something historical between you I don't know about? My understanding is neither here nor there but I find this attack on Lowalcue curious.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Festering hate?? LOL. You get more fucking stupid by the day.

Bitter because you can't live or work in the land of opportunity?

Is that why you attack America and Americans on internet forums?

Pathetic.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

OK I'm missing something here. I saw nothing different about Lowalcue's posted observations than anyone else. Why the sensitivity? Is there something historical between you I don't know about? My understanding is neither here nor there but I find this attack on Lowalcue curious.

He's not an American, yet he spends a portion of his life bashing America and Americans on an American political forum.

You don't find that odd?

 

[Lowaicue]

OK I'm missing something here. I saw nothing different about Lowalcue's posted observations than anyone else. Why the sensitivity? Is there something historical between you I don't know about? My understanding is neither here nor there but I find this attack on Lowalcue curious.

Don't worry about it. While the brain deads are hammering me they are leaving other people alone. Most of them are a laugh a minute. I doubt that any of them own a mirror.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Don't worry about it. While the brain deads are hammering me they are leaving other people alone. Most of them are a laugh a minute. I doubt that any of them own a mirror.

Perhaps you should spend a little time criticizing Chinese political leaders online.

Oh, sorry, you can't, can you?

 

[Haiku]

He's not an American, yet he spends a portion of his life bashing America and Americans on an American political forum.

You don't find that odd?

I like it that people from other countries post here and participate in the discussion. I did not know this about you....surprising and odd. I post on forums elsewhere and engage in conversation with people who are not American about issues in their country...I sometimes see posts telling Americans to butt out but not often. Whatever...

 

[Haiku]

Don't worry about it. While the brain deads are hammering me they are leaving other people alone. Most of them are a laugh a minute. I doubt that any of them own a mirror.

Do you post elsewhere on American forums? If so do you find this attitude? I'm very surprised...but that's just me.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I like it that people from other countries post here and participate in the discussion. I did not know this about you....surprising and odd. I post on forums elsewhere and engage in conversation with people who are not American about issues in their country...I sometimes see posts telling Americans to butt out but not often. Whatever...

I resent foreigners who offer no constructive comments habitually bashing our nation's people and way of life.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Do you post elsewhere on American forums? If so do you find this attitude? I'm very surprised...but that's just me.

What sort of reaction do you think an American would get (and deserve) if they posted constant carping criticisms of British people and their culture on a UK internet forum?

 

[Haiku]

I fail to see what you're accusing him of. I just don't see it that way at all.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Us"?

Who is "us"? Is there more than one Dix?

You asked me to explain what the Constitution says about voting after you posited that allowing one vote per citizen would satisfy "the constitutionality issue".

Then you doubled down by saying how much you like the idea of giving additional votes to rich people based on the dollar amount they pay in taxes.

You don't know what the Constitution says about voting, do you?

That would explain why you asked me.

Why deny it?

I didn't double down, I made the statement about liking the idea before any of this other stuff was said. I do know what the Constitution says, because I have read it. That's why I asked you to explain it to us (the people here reading this thread) and you simply balked, and continue to balk. I can only assume you don't really know what the Constitution says, you just hurled it into the debate because you thought is sounded appropriate. The fact of the matter is, what the Constitution actually says with regard to voting rights, is very vague and ambiguous, and subject to interpretation. This is why non-property owners, blacks and women, were denied the right to vote for many years. This is why we had poll taxes and why we are currently having a debate about voter ID. If the Constitution was clear and unambiguous, we would have never had these problems. AND, you would be able to adequately articulate your point by showing us where the Constitution backs you up, but you can't. Your idiocy and aloofness has been exposed, which was my sole intent and purpose. Once again, I mount a chunk of your ass on my wall, as you sit in the corner simpering like an emo kid.

*sigh* sometimes my work here is just TOO easy!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I didn't double down, I made the statement about liking the idea before any of this other stuff was said.

Liar. You jumped into a discussion Grind and I were having on the subject, and got your tit in a wringer.

Don't pretend. You're caught.

I do know what the Constitution says, because I have read it.

Sure, you have. The rest of your screed belies that untruth. You may have read it, but if you think it's "vague" you are displaying a lack of comprehension of the Constitution and disrespecting the authors, Shame on you.

That's why I asked you to explain it to us (the people here reading this thread) and you simply balked, and continue to balk.

Sure, Dix. You spoke for the collective, did you?

Hilarious.

I can only assume you don't really know what the Constitution says, you just hurled it into the debate because you thought is sounded appropriate.

So you admit that you assumed, and confess you have no factual basis for your assumptions.

The fact of the matter is, what the Constitution actually says with regard to voting rights, is very vague and ambiguous, and subject to interpretation.

If it's a fact, then you should have no difficulty proving it, should you?

Start now, and provide factual citations to support your assertions.

This is why non-property owners, blacks and women, were denied the right to vote for many years.

It is?

How's that?

This is why we had poll taxes and why we are currently having a debate about voter ID. If the Constitution was clear and unambiguous, we would have never had these problems.

We wouldn't?

AND, you would be able to adequately articulate your point by showing us where the Constitution backs you up, but you can't.

Am I the one who claimed that giving additional votes to wealthy people based on the dollar amount of their tax payments was constitutional as long as poor people got one vote each?

So you seem to be the one who needs to show how the Constitution backs you up.

Can you?

Your idiocy and aloofness has been exposed, which was my sole intent and purpose. Once again, I mount a chunk of your ass on my wall, as you sit in the corner simpering like an emo kid. *sigh* sometimes my work here is just TOO easy!

This looks like a prelude to abandoning your unproven argument prematurely.

Is it?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I fail to see what you're accusing him of. I just don't see it that way at all.

Fair enough. Then stay out of the way.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Am I the one who claimed that giving additional votes to wealthy people based on the dollar amount of their tax payments was constitutional as long as poor people got one vote each?

I didn't say one word about "wealthy" people or "poor" people.

Again, the structure of Dr. Williams idea is the same structure every major corporation in America operates on. That's why it is such an intriguing argument. When I presented it, I clearly stated that this would never happen, I am not suggesting we tie up Congress for a debate over whether or not it should happen. It's simply a tongue in cheek argument to throw on liberals and watch their heads explode... like yours did! Don't worry, it has ZERO chance of ever becoming law. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a great idea.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sure, you have. The rest of your screed belies that untruth. You may have read it, but if you think it's "vague" you are displaying a lack of comprehension of the Constitution and disrespecting the authors, Shame on you.

Again, if the Constitution was clear and unambiguous, we would have never had a debate over whether non-property owners could have the right to vote, we would have always allowed black people and women to vote, and we would have never charged poll taxes. The fact is, those things DID happen in America. Now can you explain that, if the Constitution is clear on the matter? Obviously not, since you've offered absolutely NOTHING to support your argument. You FAIL!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I didn't say one word about "wealthy" people or "poor" people.

Here's what you did say, disingenuous Dix:

...people who paid, say $2,500 in income tax, would get a second vote, and if you paid over $10k, a third, and so on. Perhaps someone who paid $2-3 million in taxes, would get 10 votes...

People who pay $2-3 million in taxes aren't considered rich? Are you suggesting they are poor?

Again, the structure of Dr. Williams idea is the same structure every major corporation in America operates on. That's why it is such an intriguing argument. When I presented it, I clearly stated that this would never happen, I am not suggesting we tie up Congress for a debate over whether or not it should happen. It's simply a tongue in cheek argument to throw on liberals and watch their heads explode... like yours did! Don't worry, it has ZERO chance of ever becoming law. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a great idea.

So you're walking back your earlier nonsense.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Liar. You jumped into a discussion Grind and I were having on the subject, and got your tit in a wringer.

LOL... No, my tit is not in any wringer. Grind said (on an open public forum) that he advocated only taxpayers getting to vote. I simply added to his thought, what Dr. Walter E. Williams proposed, a voting system based on amount of taxes you pay. While this idea completely floors liberals who are shocked and beside themselves over such a crazy notion, it is the preferred method by which every public corporation in America operates. In principle, it is a completely sane and rational approach, and that can't be argued. It won't ever happen, but it's still fun to toss it out in a philosophical conversation with idiots... particularly idiots like you who don't understand what the Constitution says.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Again, if the Constitution was clear and unambiguous, we would have never had a debate over whether non-property owners could have the right to vote, we would have always allowed black people and women to vote, and we would have never charged poll taxes.

Really?

Explain.

The fact is, those things DID happen in America.

Who said they didn't?

Now can you explain that, if the Constitution is clear on the matter?

I didn't make a claim.

You did.

Can you prove the Constitution is vague and ambiguous, or not?

Obviously not, since you've offered absolutely NOTHING to support your argument. You FAIL!

Poor Dix. Did someone tell you that declaring victory and using uppercase letters and exclamation points constitutes a valid argument?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I didn't say one word about "wealthy" people or "poor" people.

Here's what you did say, disingenuous Dix:


People who pay $2-3 million in taxes aren't considered rich? Are you suggesting they are poor?


So you're walking back your earlier nonsense.

Doesn't matter what I am "suggesting" dimwit... it matters what I SAID! I didn't SAY what you claim. Sorry!

Not walking back anything... no tit in the wringer... still tacking chunks of your ass on my wall for posterity!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

LOL... No, my tit is not in any wringer. Grind said (on an open public forum) that he advocated only taxpayers getting to vote. I simply added to his thought, what Dr. Walter E. Williams proposed, a voting system based on amount of taxes you pay.

So this statement of yours was an admitted lie.

...I made the statement about liking the idea before any of this other stuff was said...