Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, thinks that it makes sense that voting rights in the United States should be restricted to those who own property. He believes that property owners have more of a “vested stake” in a community than do people who do not own property. That’s what he claimed on a weekly program hosted by Tea Party Nation recently.
BTW, Phillips is the individual who sent an email to members of his organization in October telling them that they should vote for the Independent candidate over Rep. Keith Ellison in the November election for 5th Congressional District in Minnesota. Phillips wrote the following about Ellison in his email: “There are a lot of liberals who need to be retired this year, but there are few I can think of more deserving than Keith Ellison. Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress.”
Meanwhile—Rushbo ranted on about poor folks recently on his radio program. In a “media tweak of the day,” Limbaugh asked listeners if they thought that people who can’t feed and clothe themselves and who receive government assistance should be allowed to vote. It was just a “think piece” Rushbo said as he asked his listeners to imagine how different the political make-up of this country would be if such people couldn’t vote.
In a Psycho Talk segment on his MSNBC program, Ed Schultz “tweaked” Limbaugh back.
Maybe Phillips and Limbaugh ought to get together to establish an organization for the purpose of taking voting rights away from certain Americans whom they deem unworthy. Why not return to the good old political days when only property-owning white men had the right to vote. Right???
Sources:
– Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
It’s a good, albeit invisible, hand. Vegas likes the odds.
ekeyra:
Pretty much. I’d stand with that hand.
Right so your economics thoughts are about as deep as “adam smith said so”?
ekeyra:
Calls ’em as you sees ’em. That’s true classiness.
lol
Oh, I’m done playing already, mespo. I get bored easily, but I refuse to resort to Holmes’ infamous 7% solution. I need an actual challenge. In absence of an actual challenge, this diversion has run its course.
Meps Thanks for the name calling and avoidance of any economic discussion whatsoever. Stay classy.
B allowing the poor to ascend the social strata by letting their hard work bring substantial returns maintains a hopeless underclass, but leaving transportation, education, housing and healthcare to be provided at the whim of bureaucrats elevates all of humanity?
Buddha:
Amazing how the free marketeers always have reasons to justify their own greed. As we’ve discussed ad infinitum, the founder of capitalism had no such self-serving illusions but our neo-con/libertarian/self-absorbed friends surely can improve on his little contribution. Let me know when you tire of playing with the kindergärtners.
Bob,
Got to love that Bugliosi and loathe that Scalia.
In re Louisiana Purchase: Although disliked by the Federalists because an expansion westward threatened their power base and their (unfounded) fears that Spain actually owned the land, the idea that it was an unconstitutional expenditure was specious as Hamilton’s own interpretation of the general welfare and the spending clause (irony for sure) were later validated in Butler. I’ve always felt the Federalist objections were more related to the perceived loss of power and Jefferson and Hamilton’s general beef with each other as Hamilton’s own position vis a vis spending and general welfare backed Jefferson’s concerns about Spain or France being able to block the Port of New Orleans. Once France proved the rightful seller, war with Spain was a remote threat at best and Napoleon was happy to set up a counter to his hated British while lining French coffers.
Bob,Esq.,
Thanks for reminding of the anniversary of the Supremes efforts to install George W. as King. They had to settle for President.
Bob Esq:
good point.
Speaking of the Founders, today is the 10 year anniversary of the Stay of December 9, 2000; wherein Scalia and cadre violated the separation of powers doctrine (i.e. such as why the case was non-justiciable) to such an extent as to render the constitution into nothing more than a urinal puck.
“In yet another piece of incriminating circumstantial evidence, Scalia, in granting Bush’s application for the stay, wrote that “the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner [Bush] has a substantial probability of success.” But Antonin, why would you believe this when neither side had submitted written briefs yet (they were due the following day, Sunday, by 4 pm), nor had there even been oral arguments (set for 11 am on Monday)? It wouldn’t be because you had already made up your mind on what you were determined to do, come hell or high water, would it? Antonin, take it from an experienced prosecutor–you’re as guilty as sin. In my prosecutorial days, I’ve had some worthy opponents. You wouldn’t be one of them. Your guilt is so obvious that if I thought more of you I’d feel constrained to blush for you.” (Vincent Bugliosi, ‘None Dare Call It Treason’)
http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason
Chan L.: “wasn’t Hamilton a believer in central banks? Didn’t Jefferson think that was a real bad idea?”
Jefferson and Madison were strongly against it; see McColluch v. Maryland.
But then you also have to ask other questions like where did Jefferson get the authority to make the Louisiana Purchase, etc.
Chan,
You make me laugh as well. You know exactly what you think – me, me, me. Isn’t that right, hot rod? All you can do is rationalize greed. It’s pretty pathetic. What makes it funny is you think you’re some kind of hero for stroking yourself. You and Nero would have loved each other if either of you was capable of loving anyone but yourself.
As to Hamilton? He was a sharp guy. He was right about a lot of things – including the counterpoint to Madison about the general welfare/common good. Which was my precise point, not a general endorsement of Hamilton. I’m a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist, not a Hamiltonian Constitutionalist. While Hamilton was right about a lot of things, banking wasn’t one of them. He wasn’t smarter than Jefferson either. Banks and corporations are indeed destroying this country. Just read the news. Just like the greed that drives those organizations. Just like Jefferson said they would.
McHome Schooled,
Did I say I wanted that outcome? No. I don’t want anarchy, but by creating an underclass with no hope, it’s what exactly what your lot invites. Creating a hopeless underclass is what the retrograde and sociopathic ideals of Libertarianism invites abuses and poverty. As to anarchy and its outcome? Who knows. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Anarchy is a synonym for chaos. Chaos is systemic instability. You can argue with me all you like, but only a fool argues with proven math. Chaos is inherently dangerous because it makes all outcomes uncertain.
EKEYRA:
if you don’t mind me asking, were you really home schooled? If you were, your parents did a good job.
Just out of curiosity how did you get turned on to free market thinking? Are you an economist or is economics a hobby?
I wont take any offense if you tell me to mind my own business.
And after all those starving people finished murdering and pillaging, then what? What happens when youve stolen and distributed all available resources B? Thats it you still starve. Noone has any incentive to accumulate resources if theyre just going to be murdered for their troubles so everyone starves anyway. Its unsustainable.
Also all those things provided by government are not dynamic, any service levels are decided by bereaucrats, rather than what the recipients of those services are willing to give in exchange for those goods and services. So perhaps “payouts” may have been the wrong word but static is definately the nature of the beast.
Buddha is Laughing:
wasnt Hamilton a believer in central banks? Didnt Jefferson think that was a real bad idea?
You make me laugh, you don’t even know what you think. Just a bunch of convolutions interposed with fascist pig/greedy pig.
And delusions of grandeur.
“I think the vast majority of poor people dont believe in socialism. I think they realize that their hard work has a much better chance of lifting their level of income than relying on static government payments.”
Thinking isn’t your strong suit, is it?
The only person who mentioned “static payments” is you.
I’m talking about basic social support mechanisms like adequate and equal educational opportunities, health care for everyone, safe public housing so no child has to spend the night out in the cold and programs to keep them fed in a land of plenty where some people consider eating a damn sport, safe and reliable public transportation so that people can get to jobs and incentives for actual domestic job creation instead of rewarding those who kill jobs or move them overseas for profit.
You know – things that benefit the common good by giving people to tools to uplift themselves out of poverty.
Actually, you don’t know. All you can see is the rationale for your own greed and desire to avoid consequences. Well here’s an unavoidable consequence: if you make enough people suffer in poverty with no chance of escaping? They will eventually come kill you in your own kitchen and simply take what they need.
Say “howdy” to Marie Antoinette when you see her.
ekeyra:
you are right, when I was poor I worked my but off.
My apologies to the decent poor people trying to make it.
I hope you are right, although you have been right about most everything you have posted. So I will take your word for it.
It’s been awhile since I was poor, so please forgive my mistake.
I guess I read too many left wing pundits and have had some of that kool aid myself.
B lots of huffing and puffing about sociopaths but you havent even tried to engage me on any economic thought.
Hey chan, thanks for being on my side and all, but i really have to address that quote of yours buddha attributed to me. I think the vast majority of poor people dont believe in socialism. I think they realize that their hard work has a much better chance of lifting their level of income than relying on static government payments.