well, 18% support it, 17% are against it, and the remaining 65% apparently don’t care one way or the other.
Actually, if it passes, it will be because a majority of the voters support it. People who, for whatever reason, can’t be bothered to vote can safely be assumed to not care either way.
Yah, but they’d have let it go if she hadn’t used the municipal flag to cover her breasts. :dubious:
One of those what, broad-brush condescending bigots?
Would you care to be less cryptic?
I got it, so it can’t be that cryptic. :dubious:
Well, I don’t. Is he calling me a bigot?
I think that would be a broad-brush condescending bigot, Frank. A little cludgey, but not cryptic.
Ah, perhaps I’m just a bit slow this morning.
No, Liberal, I meant one of those whose political beliefs would destroy society. In what way does that make me a “broad-brush condescending bigot”?
Because a bigot can recognize a bigot. For a long time, I painted everyone to the left of me as a socialist and everyone to the right of me as a fascist. Now I’m old and in poor health, and I can afford to be more honest with myself. I like to think it has been my exposure to counter-arguments here at the Dope, but I can see that other people’s views have merit. It is not the case that just because you are concerned for the welfare of Smith, and are willing to take Jone’s property by force to help Smith, that you are a monster with no redeeming qualities. Don’t wait until you’re old and can’t breathe before you acknowledge that the people who sympathize with Jones but refuse to enforce sympathy from Smith are not just dismissable fools — “one of those”. The greatest thing about American society is its open engagement in dialog. You will never come to harm by simply giving any of it a fair listen.
I give Carol Stream’s political philosophy the same serious consideration I give to white supremacy and communism.
Yeah. Like I said. You’re just like them.
That’s rule by an elite minority. I’m sure there’s a proper political term for it, but it’s not representative democracy.
on preview:
Right, being against municipal swimming pools (or ponies, or even libraries) is going to destroy society. :rolleyes:
well, it certainly is rule by those who choose to participate in their representative democracy.
Last, I looked, almost every citizen 18 or older may vote. What’s elite about that?
Post #50, and also what I quoted in my comment that sparked this sub-discussion:
Liberal, you may it is worth your while to continue to consider the bad ideas of the fringe even after you have determined that they are, indeed, bad ideas. I don’t.
If only 18% of the citizens can vote in a tax increase on the rest of us, I think the system well and truly sucks.
As for taxation, our society survived and thrived from 1776-1916 without an income tax, why do we need one now? To tax a person’s livelihood, her means of support for herself and her family, is a gross injustice.
Property taxes aren’t much better. For us working stiffs, the only property we’ll ever have, if we’re lucky, is a house, which is more than likely mortgaged up. And we should pay thousands of dollars a year, to the government, just to own a house? I think not.
then somehow, cause the non voting public to care as much as you do on the issues. When I say to my spouse “you choose where we go to dinner”, that doesn’t mean our system ‘sucks’, it means for that particular decision, I’m ok w/him choosing. I would assume that the non voting public arrives to some similar conclusion.
and, of course, there has been absolutely no changes in the nation from 1916 til now. No increase in population, no changes in urbanization, crime stats, etc.
once again, until you can convince a plurarity of the voting population that your ideas are better than the status quo, your options are: stick around and whine (you seem pretty skilled in that area - perhaps you could offer some inspirational courses on the subject?) or find another location whose system is more to your liking.
How do any of those factors support taxing someone’s livelihood?
Ideas are one thing, but my rights are inherent, as endowed by the Creator. You do not have the right to take my livelihood, or my property. I realize that you think you do, but you are wrong.
because the great majority of the people do no live self sufficient lives. There are any number of issues that require cooperation and coordination beyond the corners of one individual’s property, things that are not within the scope of one persons ability to perform. systems of roads, police, fire protection, education of the masses etc. You may choose to believe all things would work out w/o governments (which would need funds to produce the results for all) but I fail to see: 1. evidence that would support such an assumption, and /or 2. why everyone else should shoulder your portion of the collective burden 'cause you stomp your little foot.
You have a right to your opinion, however, if you choose to life in a society of humans, you will need to obey the laws there-in. Do feel free, however, to opt out and find yourself a little corner of the world where you can be self sufficient. Don’t feel it necessary to let me know how it worked out, though.
Incorrect. Rights are granted by the US Constitution and you do not have an inherent right to earn income in the US without paying taxes on them. Your “creator” has no say in the matter.