Tea Party Nation chief: It makes sense in theory to limit voting to property owners; Update: Tea Party Nation chief responds

posted at 6:25 pm on December 1, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, which soberly observes that Judson Phillips’s opinion proves nothing about tea party opinion generally. I’m not so sure that this clip proves anything conclusive about Phillips’s opinion either: It’s conspicuously brief, seemingly cutting out before he leaves the subject, and it comes from Think Progress, which hasn’t always done a sterling job of editing conservatives for context. But judging from the number of comments piling up in the Headlines thread about this, you guys want to have (or continue) a food fight about it, so here you go. Let the tomato- and pie-throwing begin!

Apart from the fact that a rule like this would exclude a whole lot of poor people from voting and would therefore surely be unconstitutional as a variant of a poll tax, it makes less sense the less local the election is. The fear is that renters won’t carefully consider what’s best for their community since they can always bug out if the neighborhood starts to deteriorate; rarely will that be true if the “community” in question is the United States and the election involved is a federal one (notwithstanding the temptation to move to Canada if The One is elected to a second term), which I think is what Phillips has in mind here. Beyond that, though, it’s simply not universally true that renters are less wedded to their community than property owners. Take it from me: If you’re willing to pay the sort of rent it takes to live in New York City (rent-controlled apartments excluded, natch), it’s because you really want to live in New York City. I’ve paid a pretty penny over the years for the right to be resoundingly crushed by Democrats in every state and local election. Don’t take my right away!

Update: Apparently Phillips sent out a blast e-mail about all the leftist attention to this clip a few hours ago. I’m not on the mailing list but Ed is. Here’s what Phillips says:

Do they really want this fight?

A couple of weeks ago, on the Tea Party Nation radio show, I was talking with David DeGerolamo of NC Freedom about the Founding Fathers and the original Constitution. During the course of our discussion, I mentioned that the founding fathers limited voting rights to property owners. I commented this was a wise idea.

Apparently, two weeks after the show, some liberal stumbled across it and today, that comment has turned into liberal headlines such as, “Tea Party Nation President says It Makes A Lot of Sense to Restrict Voting to Property Owners” and “Tea Party Leaders Attack Constitution.” Suddenly, this has morphed from a discussion between two tea partiers into articles claiming that I want to change the Constitution to restrict voting to property owners.

To put it mildly, the left went nuts.

Watching the left go into hysteria over this has been nothing short of amusing. Of course, when the left goes spastic over something like this, they either get it wrong, or nine times out of ten, they lie about what was said. One of the more amusing stories started out, “Listen to Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips discuss ending voting rights for those who do not own property!”

Of course, it begs the question; do they really want this fight?

Let’s talk about the left and voting. Perhaps we should start with ACORN. In 2007, eight members of Acorn were arrested and all later pled guilty to voter fraud. ACORN is of course, a self admitted leftist organization. This would be noteworthy in and of itself, but of course, this isn’t the first time. In 1986, twelve ACORN members pleaded guilty to voter fraud. In February 2005, an ACORN worker was convicted of voter fraud in the St. Louis area.

In Houston this year, out of 25,000 voter registrations submitted by a liberal group called Houston Votes, less than 2,000 were actually valid.

In Illinois this year, at least 35 counties failed to send ballots to U.S Service members overseas in time for them to vote. However, in Chicago, election officials made certain that ballots were delivered to criminals incarcerated in the Cook County Jail.

This year, in Arizona, the liberal groups Mi Familia, Border Action and Faith, Hope &Vote bombarded the Yuma, AZ Recorders office with a massive number of registrations right before the deadline. Of those registrations, over 8000 were found to be forged. Over 300 were by convicted felons or illegal aliens.

Of course, this does not even begin to discuss the storied history of liberal Democrat election fraud. “Landside” Lyndon Johnson was the master in Texas of getting dead people to vote for him. In Chicago, the Dailey machine was legendary in stuffing ballot boxes. In more recent times, Democrats in Washington stole the Governor’s race from Dino Rossi in 2004 and the Minnesota Senate seat from Norm Coleman in 2008.

Liberals do not believe in fair elections. This goes back to the general problem liberals have with any form of competition. They do not like the competition of ideas because their ideas suck and Americans by a wide margin do not like their ideas. That is why they have to steal elections.

That is why liberals have to register people multiple times to vote. That is why they have to get dead people to vote. That is why they have to get illegal aliens to vote.

The left is currently trying to raise hell and lie about something I did not say regarding voting. Do they really want to bring their record on voting to the forefront?

Emphasis mine. He should post the transcript of the full exchange; like I said up top, this wouldn’t be the first time a conservative’s words had been bowdlerized by a lefty editor for maximum outrageous outrage effect.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Pro-lifers have no legal or other right to require lefties to accept their view of the world/allow them to make policies/whatever.

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Good job reprobate. Air it all out. Show that black soul.

Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Do you think you do?

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 10:25 PM

The Left supports disenfranchising members of the U.S. military and have done so over and over again since the 2000 election.

I support disenfranchisement, too, but of different groups. I don’t believe dead people, felons, illegal aliens, cartoon characters and non-existent people have a right to vote. I also don’t believe voters registered at vacant lots and in numbers far more than one building can contain should be allowed to vote, either. I also don’t believe Democrat voters should be allowed to go from polling place to polling place voting as others who have not voted or as other phony voters.

Democrats believe all of the above should have their votes counted while members of the U.S. military should not.

Go figure.

And meanwhile keep wondering why Democrats oppose all efforts to eliminate voter and voter registration fraud.

Every legal vote should be counted. Once.

pdigaudio on December 1, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Some of he military votes may not have complied with the law. That’s no different than what Miller what was arguing in Alaska. Do you think he was disenfranchising voters?

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Do you think you do?

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 10:25 PM

I’m honest about what I advocate for.

You…not so much.

Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 10:30 PM

What is “The Tea Party?”

This should be amusing…

Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 9:33 PM

As if you didn’t know already…but just in case:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tea+party

Dark-Star on December 1, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Pro-lifers have no legal or other right to require lefties to accept their view of the world/allow them to make policies/whatever.

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 8:38 PM

And the reverse is also true, right, Bimbo?

The cognate idea is this:

Everyone has a right, except the fetus, eh?

TheAlamos on December 1, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Dark-Star on December 1, 2010 at 10:36 PM

I was expecting something spectacularly ensconced in the ‘fail’ category.

You outdid yourself and I am left satisfied….

Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 10:43 PM

I’d just say you need to be 18 and be an LPR for a couple years. But felons should be able to vote, as should people who for whatever reason don’t have a government issued photo ID.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Why are you limiting the right to vote to people who are 18 or older? There is no such limit in the Constitution — read the 26th Amendment carefully. In fact, my reading of the 23rd Amendment means that anyone in the District of Columbia can vote if Congress wills it.

With respect to property owners only being allowed to vote, it could happen (the 24th Amendment only guarantees that no payment is needed to vote), but I could see an entire cottage industry arising, under that situation, in certain locales in which a square inch of land is deeded by the local government to any citizen (or person the locale determined ought to be able to vote) requesting same. In any case, the right to vote in national elections for Congress is determined by the States per Article 1, Sec 2 and the 17th Amendment. The electoral requirements for the President are unstated, since the choosing of electors for the Electoral College are at the whim of the particular State. Note that no requirement, not even that of Citizenship, is associated with the Office of the Vice President. It is only should the Vice President succeed to the Office of the President that a citizenship requirement comes into play.

As for the wisdom of the Founding States in limiting the franchise to property owners, something has happened which has made the States expand the franchise to non-propertied citizens.

One can argue that a requirement to own property is equivalent to a literacy test, which has been found to be Constitutional by the Supreme Court. Hence, there is nothing inherently unConstitutional about it, but States have chosen to define their Electors differently.

unclesmrgol on December 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Pro-lifers have no legal or other right to require lefties to accept their view of the world/allow them to make policies/whatever.

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 8:38 PM

I submit that the converse is true too. Such is how laws are made.

unclesmrgol on December 1, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Do you think you do?

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 10:25 PM
I’m honest about what I advocate for.

You…not so much.

Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 10:30 PM

You’re avoiding the question. Do you think you have a legal or moral right to require others to accept your views of the world?

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Pro-lifers have no legal or other right to require lefties to accept their view of the world/allow them to make policies/whatever.

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 8:38 PM
I submit that the converse is true too. Such is how laws are made.

unclesmrgol on December 1, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Agree.

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Do you think you have a legal or moral right to require others to accept your views of the world?

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM
Do you?

Do you think you have a legal or moral right to require others to accept all of your views about murder?

blink on December 1, 2010 at 11:13 PM

I’ll answer when I get an answer from inanemergency.

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 11:17 PM

You’re avoiding the question. Do you think you have a legal or moral right to require others to accept your views of the world?

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

MY ACCUSER DEMANDS AN ANSWER!
My word you are a tedious basterd. If I asked you about your affinity towards the taste of milk, you would say that an ultrasound of an abortion wouldn’t put you off your gormah sahzib.

Get stuffed leftist.

Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 11:19 PM

And by ‘get stuffed’, I mean ‘jog off’

Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Do you think you have a legal or moral right to require others to accept your views of the world?

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

At least you admit that your worldview emancipates morality from legality.

Must be some utopia there champ.

Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 11:32 PM

From 2002-2006 there were 86 voter fraud convictions out of something like 400 million votes cast.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 9:24 PM

The fact that the crime is very difficult to detect and prosecute does not mean people are not committing it. The many, many instances of voter registration fraud suggest that there is actual vote fraud occurring on the other end.

Just curious – what do you suppose the rate of occurrences of speeding to speeding convictions looks like?

Missy on December 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM

Why are you limiting the right to vote to people who are 18 or older?

unclesmrgol on December 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Really the main thing I’m worried about is that if you let children vote, they’ll essentially be a second vote for their parents. So you need to draw a line where you can assume they’ll be independent enough to make the decision themselves, and the normal age of majority (18) seems like a rational choice for that line.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Just curious – what do you suppose the rate of occurrences of speeding to speeding convictions looks like?

Missy on December 1, 2010 at 11:35 PM

You’re neglecting to mention the fact that Bush’s DOJ made voter fraud an enforcement priority and tried to crack down on it. And they found virtually nothing. A lot of cases they turned up ended up being honest mistakes. If it’s so prevalent, why didn’t they convict more people? If a local police station wants to crack down on speeding, they’d have no problem handing out scores of tickets.

Again, there is no “there” there. It’s a non-issue, used by you guys to drive down turnout.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 11:55 PM

They do not like the competition of ideas because their ideas suck and Americans by a wide margin do not like their ideas. That is why they have to steal elections.

And make back-room deals while passing a bill without reading it.

TN Mom on December 2, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Again, there is no “there” there. It’s a non-issue, used by you guys to drive down turnout.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Good reason to cry again, eh leftist?

Inanemergencydial on December 2, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Some of he military votes may not have complied with the law. That’s no different than what Miller what was arguing in Alaska. Do you think he was disenfranchising voters?

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Do you mean the votes Gore contested in 2000 because they did not bear individal postmarks, the ballots that some Democratic enclaves refused to mail in time for them to be returned in time to be counted, or some other group of military votes?

malclave on December 2, 2010 at 12:07 AM

Anything that affects property taxes should only be voted on by property owners. Otherwise, you get tons of people voting for something that don’t have to pay for it.

Property owners who have property in more than one county can only vote in their primary home county. This disenfranchises them the same way.

Common Sense on December 2, 2010 at 12:10 AM

You’re neglecting to mention the fact that Bush’s DOJ made voter fraud an enforcement priority and tried to crack down on it. And they found virtually nothing. A lot of cases they turned up ended up being honest mistakes.

Who is this tool? I’ll be blunt.

In the last election here in CT there was rampent votor fraud in Bridgeport caught on tape- Poll watchers being lead out for asking questions, photocopied ballots, polls being held open for 2 more hours to garner more votes AND use of the 911 system to call people to come to the voting places there (against the law btw).

The city of Bridgeport has “declined” to have its polling places inspected and the democrat that is in charge of voting in CT is a-ok with that.

They stole the govenors race with the one city, the rest of the state was solid red. Just enough votes to win, not enough to trigger and automatic recount.

gdonovan on December 2, 2010 at 5:47 AM

Oh and I forgot to mention- Also they were caught handing out 2 or 3 ballots at a time to votors and not asking for ID.

Bridgeport is a sanctuary city.

gdonovan on December 2, 2010 at 5:55 AM

Everyone who is legally here & a citizen has the ability to go & get an ID card.
My mother never drove & she had an ID card.
It is easy to get.
The fee is nominal & I am sure the desperately poor could get out of paying like a $5 fee for one.
ID should be required to vote. Period.

Badger40 on December 2, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Everyone who is legally here & a citizen has the ability to go & get an ID card.
My mother never drove & she had an ID card.
It is easy to get.
The fee is nominal & I am sure the desperately poor could get out of paying like a $5 fee for one.
ID should be required to vote. Period.

Badger40 on December 2, 2010 at 7:59 AM

The only reason why that might be a bad idea is for your Glenn Beck/Alex Jones types who think that every place where the government gets involved in your life = fascism or something. I’m sure Glenn Beck supports mandatory picture IDs at the voting booths, but if it were a Democratic idea, he’d be all, “So Democrats are forcing me to go be on a list, to be tracked by the government, in order for me to exercise my right to vote” or something similarly crazy. Or you could say that the government is forcing you to buy something in order to exercise your voting rights, and depending on how you feel about the new health care law, that might be unconstitutional in your view.

Anyway, I think Voter ID is a terrific idea. If you can’t get it together enough to head down to the DMV and scowl at the camera for 5 seconds then you probably shouldn’t be voting anyway.

So, you know, if *I* think it’s a good idea, usually that means you guys think you should oppose it.

Proud Rino on December 2, 2010 at 8:09 AM

They stole the govenors race with the one city, the rest of the state was solid red. Just enough votes to win, not enough to trigger and automatic recount.

gdonovan on December 2, 2010 at 5:47 AM

Or you just lost. Whatever happened to losing gracefully? Now, it’s that someone else cheated. And don’t let it stop you if there’s not really any evidence of that. It’s never your fault. It’s never your candidate’s fault. It’s always cheating.

Proud Rino on December 2, 2010 at 8:59 AM

You’re neglecting to mention the fact that Bush’s DOJ made voter fraud an enforcement priority and tried to crack down on it. And they found virtually nothing. A lot of cases they turned up ended up being honest mistakes. If it’s so prevalent, why didn’t they convict more people? If a local police station wants to crack down on speeding, they’d have no problem handing out scores of tickets.

Again, there is no “there” there. It’s a non-issue, used by you guys to drive down turnout.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 11:55 PM

yeah all those indictments of ACORN every election for voter fraud mean NOTHING….right….

right4life on December 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

The only reason why that might be a bad idea is for your Glenn Beck/Alex Jones types who think that every place where the government gets involved in your life = fascism or something. I’m sure Glenn Beck supports mandatory picture IDs at the voting booths, but if it were a Democratic idea, he’d be all, “So Democrats are forcing me to go be on a list, to be tracked by the government, in order for me to exercise my right to vote” or something similarly crazy.

smear job

right4life on December 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

yeah all those indictments of ACORN every election for voter fraud mean NOTHING….right….

right4life on December 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Voter registration fraud, no voter fraud. You’re referring to a handful of employees who were paid by how many people they registered, so they registered Daffy Duck and Wile E. Coyote. That certainly doesn’t mean Daffy Duck voted.

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM

In our city local election, renters have voted to raise our taxes through mileage proposals 4 times in the last 7 years. I guess it might be a little easier to vote YES when your not paying property taxes… just sayin.

shar61 on December 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Voter registration fraud, no voter fraud. You’re referring to a handful of employees who were paid by how many people they registered, so they registered Daffy Duck and Wile E. Coyote. That certainly doesn’t mean Daffy Duck voted.

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM

oh of course no voter fraud…and who is watching the polls in ACORN dominated areas??? it couldn’t be acorn there stuffing the ballot box could it???? no it would NEVER happen in democRAT dominated areas….

right4life on December 2, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Oh, and yes I did mean low income apartment renters. They are a politicians dream come true. They hold a meeting at the apartment complex and tell them that if they do not vote YES the nasty taxpayers will take away their free lunch… One could only hope.

At 50, I have been hearing about the starving children in schools for about 27 years.. and they are still starving with the free lunch program… amazing. Here is how conservative I am: I would cut off the free lunch for 3 years and then re-evaluate.

shar61 on December 2, 2010 at 9:47 AM

oh of course no voter fraud…and who is watching the polls in ACORN dominated areas??? it couldn’t be acorn there stuffing the ballot box could it????
right4life on December 2, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Probably not, not but even if they were stuffing ballot boxes requiring voter ID’s wouldn’t stop them from doing so. And that’s what were discussing.

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Frankly, I’m up for anything that would end this mess we have now where less than 50% of us are paying for the other 50% to sponge off our incomes!
Property ownership works for me.
(And I pay plenty in property taxes, too.)

Jenfidel on December 2, 2010 at 9:59 AM

That certainly doesn’t mean Daffy Duck voted.

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Is this thought supposed to be consoling?
Because it isn’t.

Jenfidel on December 2, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Probably not, not but even if they were stuffing ballot boxes requiring voter ID’s wouldn’t stop them from doing so. And that’s what were discussing.

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 9:48 AM

no of course NOT!! the democRATS NEVER cheat….

right4life on December 2, 2010 at 10:05 AM

So, you know, if *I* think it’s a good idea, usually that means you guys think you should oppose it.

Proud Rino on December 2, 2010 at 8:09 AM

Give me a break. If you’re right, you’re right.
Quit smearing up Glenn Beck & others & just say what you believe.
If you’re full of it, people will tell you.
If you’re right, people will agree with you.
I agree with you.

Badger40 on December 2, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Is this thought supposed to be consoling?
Because it isn’t.

Jenfidel on December 2, 2010 at 10:01 AM

I agree.
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Badger40 on December 2, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Anything that affects property taxes should only be voted on by property owners. Otherwise, you get tons of people voting for something that don’t have to pay for it.

Are you nuts ??? What do you think the property owned does with my rent money – buy drugs with it ?? Well maybe he does but I would think it mainly goes to pay his property taxes.

LODGE4 on December 2, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Are you nuts ??? What do you think the property owned does with my rent money – buy drugs with it ?? Well maybe he does but I would think it mainly goes to pay his property taxes.

LODGE4 on December 2, 2010 at 10:39 AM

I can tell you that my landlord when I was in college had to have used my rent money to buy gold chains and drakkar noir. But I agree with you.

Proud Rino on December 2, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Really the main thing I’m worried about is that if you let children vote, they’ll essentially be a second vote for their parents. So you need to draw a line where you can assume they’ll be independent enough to make the decision themselves, and the normal age of majority (18) seems like a rational choice for that line.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 11:51 PM

But we have an income tax which extends to children. Isn’t that a form of “taxation without representation”? We certainly equate, for adults, a right to ballot to representation — why isn’t it the same for a child?

unclesmrgol on December 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM

In our city local election, renters have voted to raise our taxes through mileage proposals 4 times in the last 7 years. I guess it might be a little easier to vote YES when your not paying property taxes… just sayin.

shar61 on December 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Is there rent control? If not, the renters do get a passthrough on taxes… If there is, then they have the best of both worlds — they get to take money from the landlord in the form of taxes, and the landlord cannot respond by raising their rents.

unclesmrgol on December 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM

But we have an income tax which extends to children. Isn’t that a form of “taxation without representation”? We certainly equate, for adults, a right to ballot to representation — why isn’t it the same for a child?

unclesmrgol on December 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM

That never occurred to me. But that is pretty crappy that kids get SSI etc taken out of their checks & they can’t vote.
Of, course, there are other taxes people pay like gas tax etc & it doesn’t matter who you are, if you purchase that product, you pay the tax.

Badger40 on December 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Allow me to throw out the Following thought: There is a connection between freedom and economics. If you are economically dependent upon another entity, that entity can limit your freedom. To get more specific, if you are on welfare, your case officer can coerce you by threatening to reduce or terminate your benefits, or just hinting at it.

If there is only one employer you can work for, or you have to belong to a specific organization to work, the same thing applies.

A “man of property” as it was understood during the 18th century, would be self-supporting, and so independent.

LarryD on December 2, 2010 at 11:28 AM

The only thing this story says to me is that some of the Teaparty titular heads are really silly about interviews. They are the true Christine O’donnells.

I still think she got a raw deal.

These guys are goofy. You can’t discuss this stuff without someone pulling out a statement and plopping it on U-Tube!

They just look like they are back in some sophomore class, thinking they can raise their hand and chat without consequence.

Unprofessional, in short.

AnninCA on December 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Who died and made this guy the head of the Tea Party? I have also started hearing about pundits labeled as “Tea Party Strategist.” When the professional political class comes to the Tea Party, it has jumped the shark.

I might agree that only those who own property should be able to vote to increase property taxes. Everyone has to suffer with the results of those we elect to office and everyone should be allowed to vote for them.

flyoverland on December 2, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Isn’t that a form of “taxation without representation”?
unclesmrgol on December 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Maybe in a few cases, but we tax people without representation in other situations as well, e.g. with convicted felons. There’s no provision in the Constitution that says “no taxation without representation.”

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 12:10 PM

While I disagree with the Founders about owning property in order to vote, I do believe that EVERY citizen should pay taxes. I don’t care if it’s just $1. EVERYONE should have some interest in the government and what it does with their money.

Too many pay NO taxes, yet manage to qualify for a “refund”.

GarandFan on December 2, 2010 at 12:13 PM

My word you are a tedious basterd. If I asked you about your affinity towards the taste of milk, you would say that an ultrasound of an abortion wouldn’t put you off your gormah sahzib.

Get stuffed leftist.

Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 11:19 PM

And by ‘get stuffed’, I mean ‘jog off’

Inanemergencydial on December 1, 2010 at 11:21 PM

Do you even live in the US? I’ve never heard anyone here use “jog off” or “gormah sahzib”. And “get stuffed” is used more in the UK (and, I think, Oz and Canada) than it is in the US.

Jimbo3 on December 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM

What was “wise” about requiring property, not just being a citizen, to be able to vote?

Sounds tyrannical to me.

What if you prefer to rent?

profitsbeard on December 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM

So once again the lefturds resort to lying and smearing someone. Wow, that’s a shocker.

I favor civics and reading comprehension exams. I also favor preventing felons from voting anywhere.

dogsoldier on December 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM

What if you prefer to rent?

profitsbeard on December 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Better question: what if you can ONLY rent? Especially in a recession!

If the idea is to limit voting on property taxes to those who own property, that’s one thing. But to limit voting at all to property owners? Forget it. And if such a ‘law’ passed, Americans would be entirely within their rights to start an armed revolt.

We already have the beginnings of landed aristocracy. Why the hell would the supposed party of Joe Average want to make it official? (unless of course they were shills and willful fools)

Dark-Star on December 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Sorry I forgot. Voting must also be limited to the EMPLOYED or those who earned their retirement from being employed.

dogsoldier on December 2, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Frankly, I’m up for anything that would end this mess we have now where less than 50% of us are paying for the other 50% to sponge off our incomes!
Property ownership works for me.
(And I pay plenty in property taxes, too.)

Jenfidel on December 2, 2010 at 9:59 AM

This is the crux of the matter for me too! I’m sick of half this country sponging off the other half, yet we’re supposed to sit back while they vote to take more of our money. To heck with that!

vapig on December 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM

I believe he was speaking of the voting rights at the beginning of the constitution. Before blacks, women, illegal aliens and felons could vote.. He was not speaking of changing it back. He was making a point.

shar61 on December 2, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Pro-lifers have no legal or other right to require lefties to accept their view of the world/allow them to make policies/whatever.

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 8:38 PM

According to our Declaration of Independence…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

…the very existence of our Government is to secure the pro-life worldview, and…

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

…that the Right to Life is so powerful, that our Government deserves to be altered or even destroyed to secure that Right!

In summary, the Declaration of Independence, which provided the justification for the very existence of our Government and Constitution which legally governs it, stated that those Rights (of which one is Life) is so important that if the Government does not secure it, the Government deserves to be overthrown and replaced with one that does.

A person of integrity will apologize when proven wrong. Will you do so now, or will you blindly hold to a proven fallacy?

dominigan on December 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM

We already have the beginnings of landed aristocracy. Why the hell would the supposed party of Joe Average want to make it official? (unless of course they were shills and willful fools)

Dark-Star on December 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Not true – but I’m sure it sounds good. More people own homes than they did in the Founding. However, Jenfidel said earlier (and I conur) people are getting sick of having their taxes raised by people who don’t have a pony in the show, but have a voice in taking our tax dollars.

vapig on December 2, 2010 at 1:14 PM

What was “wise” about requiring property, not just being a citizen, to be able to vote?

Sounds tyrannical to me.

What if you prefer to rent?

profitsbeard on December 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Before the 16th Amendment, taxes were closer to the individual at the state or local level. If Congress passed legislation requiring money, the bill was divided up and sent to the states for payment (which is why Senators represented states instead of people). Senators acted as a fiscal brake against the whims of the populace.

Since most taxes were enacted against PROPERTY, it only made sense that those paying the taxes should also approve that increase. Why would you allow someone to vote for larger Government if they were not going to participate in funding that larger Government?

That also prevented entitlements, that now threaten our Government with financial collapse…

We have so completely corrupted and screwed up the system our Founders created…

dominigan on December 2, 2010 at 1:18 PM

people are getting sick of having their taxes raised by people who don’t have a pony in the show

vapig on December 2, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Absolutely! Property taxes have more than doubled in the 15 years since we bought our house. Since salaries in my area have stagnated over the last few years, those same increases threaten the stability of our budget. I would move if I could, but I can’t. With Obamacare healthcare cost increases, and my job cutting benefits in a recession, we’re living paycheck to paycheck and barely scraping by.

And yet others demand the “right” to take what little prosperity my family has built to squander it in their laziness. How much longer can this type of system continue…?

dominigan on December 2, 2010 at 1:24 PM

The only reason why that might be a bad idea is for your Glenn Beck/Alex Jones types who think that every place where the government gets involved in your life = fascism or something.

Proud Rino on December 2, 2010 at 8:09 AM

First of all to compare Glenn Beck to Alex Jones is a complete smear job. Glenn has called out Alex Jones types many times, especially during the first instances of the TEA Party rallies.

Second, I’ve lived long enough to see small Government involvements grow into tangled impediments. In my own personal life, I’ll cite…

1) Applying for student loans. First the parent has to go onto the Gov website, enter a bunch of personal info (including Fed taxes), apply for an electronic pin. Then the student goes through the similar set of steps. Then both have to use the pin to confirm and check on status. Then verify with schools, who also have to provide their input. Its just a HUGE, FREAKIN MESS!

2) Bought a used car for my daughter. It came with ignition (chip) keys, but not door keys. Turns out not just any shop can pull up the codes and make keys. You have to take your title, registration, insurance card and drivers license to an authorized dealer to pull the codes ($35!) and make the keys. Damn keys still don’t work…

3) I’ve had to file corrections to IRS taxes twice now, because not even the tax software could catch all the exceptions and special handling. Why should taxes require such complications? My friend (who runs a small business) can’t do anything without getting his accountant involved to figure out the tax liabilities of a business decision.

Do I really need to spend the next few hours reiterating more examples, or have I disproved the stupidity of your statement enough that I can move on to the enlightened comments on HotAir?

dominigan on December 2, 2010 at 1:38 PM

A person of integrity will apologize when proven wrong. Will you do so now, or will you blindly hold to a proven fallacy?

dominigan on December 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM

There is no proven fallacy. The language you cited talks about men, not fetuses. And it doesn’t cover women.

Will you exhibit integrity and apologize for your mistake.

Jimbo3 on December 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM

There is no proven fallacy. The language you cited talks about men, not fetuses. And it doesn’t cover women.

Will you exhibit integrity and apologize for your mistake.

Jimbo3 on December 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM

The language I cited mentioned Life. A fetus is a living human at a specific developmental stage… like baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult and senior.

I stand by my previous comment.

dominigan on December 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Allahpundit you state that this would be “unconstitutional”. Well I’ve got news for ya. the guys who wrote the constitution wanted to do this very thing! As for me I say no, but I do say is that if you do not pay taxes than you don’t vote, because the welfare people should NOT have a right to vote away other people’s money!

Confederate on December 2, 2010 at 2:16 PM

In summary, the Declaration of Independence, which provided the justification for the very existence of our Government and Constitution which legally governs it, stated that those Rights (of which one is Life) is so important that if the Government does not secure it, the Government deserves to be overthrown and replaced with one that does.

dominigan on December 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM

No, the Constitution doesn’t say that. The Declaration of Independence does.

A person of integrity will apologize when proven wrong. Will you do so now, or will you blindly hold to a proven fallacy?

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM

The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous and some lame attempt to make it about liberals vs conservatives is stupid too.

This is not about left and right, it is about property owner vs everyone else. There are plenty of people in this country who do not own property. And there are plenty of foreigners who own property in the United States. Is some Saudi sheik more of an American than some woman whose name is not on the deed of the property she and her husband own? Or some young adult who lives at home or rooms with other young people?

We got into a lot of economic trouble in this country because people who had no business trying to buy houses went in deep on some mortgage..are we going to require that Americans take on debt just so they can vote? This would work fine for people who inherit property, but then again should those people have more rights than other people?

And what if you sell or lose your property? Do you lose the right to vote?

It is just dumb and trying to explain it does not help. There are a lot of people out there who do not like or trust the Tea Party movement, it is irresponsible to give them something to use against the entire movement.

Terrye on December 2, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Allahpundit you state that this would be “unconstitutional”. Well I’ve got news for ya. the guys who wrote the constitution wanted to do this very thing! As for me I say no, but I do say is that if you do not pay taxes than you don’t vote, because the welfare people should NOT have a right to vote away other people’s money!

Confederate on December 2, 2010 at 2:16 PM

This is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin..for one thing poll taxes are now illegal…as in against the law.

For another at the time of the signing of the Constitution we had a farmer/skilled artisan society in the Colonies in which many of the people were either slaves, indentured servants, or immigrants from all over the world coming here for free land and adventure. Women could not vote in those days because they were not seen as independent self sufficient people capable of making decisions for themselves…to compare what the founding fathers might have said in the late 18th century in regards to voting rights to today is absurd.

They gave us a system of laws and a form of government and using that structure the United States has established laws and rules concering voting rights.

The idea that you would deprive people of the right to vote because they do not own property is so unjust that I find it hard reasonable people would consider it…especially people who are complaining that we are ruled by blue bloods and elites.

Terrye on December 2, 2010 at 2:46 PM

And as for welfare people, well who is that? Everyone on medicare and social security? People on medicaid? I have a client, a young man who broke his neck in an accident. Eventually he went on medicaid because his other resources were depleted and there was no other way to get the medication and supplies he needed. Should he lose his right to vote? He is a conservative too. There are also vets who get help from the government and are dependent on the state… and many of them do not own property…should they lose their right to vote?

Terrye on December 2, 2010 at 2:51 PM

In summary, the Declaration of Independence, which provided the justification for the very existence of our Government and Constitution which legally governs it, stated that those Rights (of which one is Life) is so important that if the Government does not secure it, the Government deserves to be overthrown and replaced with one that does.
dominigan on December 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM

No, the Constitution doesn’t say that. The Declaration of Independence does.

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Which is probably why the text you quoted states that the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, says that.

malclave on December 2, 2010 at 3:13 PM

There is no proven fallacy. The language you cited talks about men, not fetuses. And it doesn’t cover women.

Will you exhibit integrity and apologize for your mistake.

Jimbo3 on December 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM
The language I cited mentioned Life. A fetus is a living human at a specific developmental stage… like baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult and senior.

I stand by my previous comment.

dominigan on December 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM

And I stand by mine. How does the application of that language to fetuses make any sense at all? How can fetuses give their consent to be governed?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Jimbo3 on December 2, 2010 at 3:16 PM

How can fetuses give their consent to be governed?

Jimbo3 on December 2, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Fetuses give consent the same way an already born infant does.

This issue, and those who hold your view of it, will be looked upon with greater derision in the future than those supporting the Nazi and racist viewpoints of 50 years ago and more are today.

The wilful ignorance of those on the left side of the aisle on this issue is astounding.

You all present yourselves as so compassionate and caring about women’s rights, when all you really do is create destruction and death.

This is truly disgusting.

samuelrylander on December 2, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Voter registration fraud, no voter fraud. You’re referring to a handful of employees who were paid by how many people they registered, so they registered Daffy Duck and Wile E. Coyote. That certainly doesn’t mean Daffy Duck voted.

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM

But how do you check? What if his name was “Donald Douglas”? How do you make sure noncitizens aren’t voting?

alwaysfiredup on December 2, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Or you just lost. Whatever happened to losing gracefully? Now, it’s that someone else cheated. And don’t let it stop you if there’s not really any evidence of that. It’s never your fault. It’s never your candidate’s fault. It’s always cheating.

Proud Rino on December 2, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Clearly you have a reading comprehension issue.

What part of “ALL CAUGHT ON TAPE” wasn’t clear?

gdonovan on December 2, 2010 at 4:01 PM

So now I know why Kennedy picked Landslide Lyndon for VP. Kennedy needed somebody on the ticket even more corrupt than Kennedy was. Get out the dead and get’em voting – the Democrat specialty.

abcurtis on December 2, 2010 at 7:24 PM

That certainly doesn’t mean Daffy Duck voted.

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Doesnt mean he didnt either, especially if he is a democrat. LOL :)

abcurtis on December 2, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Pro-lifers have no legal or other right to require lefties to accept their view of the world/allow them to make policies/whatever.

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 8:38 PM

I submit that the converse is true too. Such is how laws are made.

unclesmrgol on December 1, 2010 at 10:47 PM

That’s why we have Fords and Chevrolets.

abcurtis on December 2, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Maybe in a few cases, but we tax people without representation in other situations as well, e.g. with convicted felons. There’s no provision in the Constitution that says “no taxation without representation.”

crr6 on December 2, 2010 at 12:10 PM

But kids aren’t felons. I do agree, but there was no provision in the Constitution allowing blacks to vote, and yet we found that situation so reprehensible that we changed the Constitution to allow it.

I find it strange that we’ve gone from taxing kids on their own income at their own rate to taxing them at their parent’s rate. If you are a kid and have a lemonade stand, the taxes you’ll pay on the same dollar as the one made from the kid down the street may well depend not on the dollar but on what each of your respective parents earn.

unclesmrgol on December 3, 2010 at 11:57 PM

That’s why we have Fords and Chevrolets.

abcurtis on December 2, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Yup, the Government has sure made that possible.

unclesmrgol on December 3, 2010 at 11:58 PM

And I stand by mine. How does the application of that language to fetuses make any sense at all? How can fetuses give their consent to be governed?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Jimbo3 on December 2, 2010 at 3:16 PM

How can a person in a coma give their consent?

Your argument is a red herring.

unclesmrgol on December 4, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3