Rush Limbaugh: Let's turn the US into aristocracy.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-30 06:21am

I have never seen anything more...I cant think of a proper word....

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-06-30 06:46am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I have never seen anything more...I cant think of a proper word....

Limbaugh?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-30 07:49am

Ah, Rush Limbaugh in classic form.

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2003-06-30 07:50am

Not much one can say about that but....

Still though....one would have to wonder just how much extra cash the government might be rolling in if some of the high income earners with various tax loopholes suddenly decided that they'd be better off paying the taxes and getting the votes.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2003-06-30 11:24am

Where was this quote from?

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2003-06-30 12:32pm

closet sci-fi fan wrote:oh the link to the post is: click me!

im papermachesatan.

no edit button

Yeah...not going to register.

Do you have a link to the original quote source attributed to Limbaugh?

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2003-06-30 12:55pm

closet sci-fi fan wrote:
Phil Skayhan wrote:Where was this quote from?
It came from someone on another board:
tfproject.org forum member Sun Tzu wrote:I find annoying; yet I seem to listen to all the time: Rush Limbaugh. He had someone subbing for him and this is what he presented:

Ok, so this wasn't actually Limbaugh, although the sub's views have to be at least tacitly approved by Rush.

I usually use the gas price example (I use burgers) as an oversimplied demonstration of a progressive income tax when someone brings up the "rich should pay their fair share".

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2003-06-30 02:03pm

closet sci-fi fan wrote:Nope, the poster claims he heard it on the radio. I could ask him to provide a link, if you want.

So you are taking the word of a guy on another board who could have heard it wrong or completely misinterpreted the broadcast, not the most concrete evidence he said it.

Anyway if
paying a certain $$$ in taxes = right to vote
that would be fucked up because of people like me, I have a job through the Govt that is non-taxable(college work study) and that would fuck me out of my right to vote.
Now if you are talking about people who don't pay taxes at all, when they should then maybe their right to vote could be revoked until they start paying taxes again. I might go for that ...... MAYBE.....

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-30 02:13pm

People who pay higher taxes don't get more votes because they already have more money with which to change their lives. Representative government exists to ensure things to those who dont have the ability to ensure it for themselves. You cannot give more votes to the rich because they don't need them, they can buy their way through life without any problems.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2003-06-30 05:46pm

I'm in favour of the unemployed not being allowed to vote.

Exceptions: Retired people, stay-at-home spouses, and single parents that have gotten the shaft somehow by the other parent and have to stay at home to look after there kid (basically anyone on child and supposal support)

Also, people with a criminal record (of a certain level. Shoplifting, big deal. A few assault charges, no vote for a while), owe taxes, or have 5 figure depts (morgages car and student loans do not count for this, but credit cards do) and the other legal and finicial wastes.

AS they are, they are a leech on society, so why should they have a say in running it? Does the dog on a flea have the right to protest what the dog is eating?

Now then, by the same token, if you have even a minimum wage job (or are married to or legally bound to someone that does), have a clean or reasonable clean legal record, and are not a big time burden on anyone, then by all means, you have the right to vote, as you are a contributing member of society.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-06-30 06:09pm

Solauren wrote:I'm in favour of the unemployed not being allowed to vote.

Now then, by the same token, if you have even a minimum wage job (or are married to or legally bound to someone that does), have a clean or reasonable clean legal record, and are not a big time burden on anyone, then by all means, you have the right to vote, as you are a contributing member of society.

How about a professional who has just been laid off and finds themself overqualified to work at any job that's offered? Should they be denied the right to vote just because they can't get a job?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-30 06:11pm

The only people who I think should be denied to vote are welfare recipients and criminals. Other than that, everyone should be allowed the vote.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-06-30 07:54pm

closet sci-fi fan wrote:
Death from the Sea wrote:
closet sci-fi fan wrote:Nope, the poster claims he heard it on the radio. I could ask him to provide a link, if you want.
So you are taking the word of a guy on another board who could have heard it wrong or completely misinterpreted the broadcast, not the most concrete evidence he said it.
Yes, you're correct. I will ask the guy to find a link and I will search for one myself. He's is actively defending what he may or may not have accurately heard on the radio so he might have some online evidence.

Good idea there -- too many are ready to attribute things that were never said...

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2003-06-30 10:19pm

Iceberg wrote:
Solauren wrote:I'm in favour of the unemployed not being allowed to vote.

Now then, by the same token, if you have even a minimum wage job (or are married to or legally bound to someone that does), have a clean or reasonable clean legal record, and are not a big time burden on anyone, then by all means, you have the right to vote, as you are a contributing member of society.
How about a professional who has just been laid off and finds themself overqualified to work at any job that's offered? Should they be denied the right to vote just because they can't get a job?

No, I think he should be able to vote, because he had a job recently. If however, 2 years later, he hasn't found a job, then there is a problem. His case would have to be examined. Also, has he turned down jobs he felt were benith him? If he has, well, that's saying something. However, most people have more sense then that.

You see, he was a contributing member of society, but someone decided to take that from him. I'm not going to fault him for that.

However, I will fault the welfare bums, criminals, and other people that are a waste on society. Your example is not a waste on society.

Let me give a few more solid examples of people that I think should not have the right to vote

Anyone on welfare that has spent more time on welfare then they have working. Workman's comp or medical conditions that prevent someone from getting a job in the first place do not count. I'm talking about people that turn 16 and have a kid to get on welfare, or run aways, stuff like that.
The two exceptions I listed are examples of people that are not able to contribute

Layed off? Depends on how long you have been layed off. If you have been layed off for 2 years and haven't been trying to get help, then your s.o.l. Your name in at temporary agencies and employeement bureau's, etc, counts as looking, unless you have turned down alot of jobs they have offered in your field or a related field. I agree, making a skilled electrition work a gas-pump is just wrong. However, if they take the job, more power to them (pun not intended)

Crooks, it depends on the level of crime. Minor stuff, and civil stuff under $1000 - $3000 (depends, some crimes are worse but have lower values), unless you have alot of it shouldn't count. However, if you are going to jail for 5 years, you don't get to vote for 5 years AFTER you get out.

Post by **Steve** » 2003-07-01 09:56am

Solauren wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
Solauren wrote:I'm in favour of the unemployed not being allowed to vote.

Now then, by the same token, if you have even a minimum wage job (or are married to or legally bound to someone that does), have a clean or reasonable clean legal record, and are not a big time burden on anyone, then by all means, you have the right to vote, as you are a contributing member of society.
How about a professional who has just been laid off and finds themself overqualified to work at any job that's offered? Should they be denied the right to vote just because they can't get a job?
No, I think he should be able to vote, because he had a job recently. If however, 2 years later, he hasn't found a job, then there is a problem. His case would have to be examined. Also, has he turned down jobs he felt were benith him? If he has, well, that's saying something. However, most people have more sense then that.

You see, he was a contributing member of society, but someone decided to take that from him. I'm not going to fault him for that.

However, I will fault the welfare bums, criminals, and other people that are a waste on society. Your example is not a waste on society.

Let me give a few more solid examples of people that I think should not have the right to vote

Anyone on welfare that has spent more time on welfare then they have working. Workman's comp or medical conditions that prevent someone from getting a job in the first place do not count. I'm talking about people that turn 16 and have a kid to get on welfare, or run aways, stuff like that.
The two exceptions I listed are examples of people that are not able to contribute

Layed off? Depends on how long you have been layed off. If you have been layed off for 2 years and haven't been trying to get help, then your s.o.l. Your name in at temporary agencies and employeement bureau's, etc, counts as looking, unless you have turned down alot of jobs they have offered in your field or a related field. I agree, making a skilled electrition work a gas-pump is just wrong. However, if they take the job, more power to them (pun not intended)

Crooks, it depends on the level of crime. Minor stuff, and civil stuff under $1000 - $3000 (depends, some crimes are worse but have lower values), unless you have alot of it shouldn't count. However, if you are going to jail for 5 years, you don't get to vote for 5 years AFTER you get out.

We already do that. Someone convicted of a crime can have their civil rights revoked for a certain period of time, so no voting, no right to own guns or anything that could be used as a weapon, etc.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2003-07-01 09:27pm

This whole thing operates under the premise that anyone CAN get a job. I will guarantee that this isn't true. If you are homeless, it is impossible to get a job, for a number of reasons, the largest being no dress clothing and no mailing addess. Plus, this also excludes the working poor and legal immigrants, two groups who do a hell of a lot working jobs that no one wants to work, thus contributing to society, yet many times, dont make enough to pay tax. On top of this all, one of the principles of this country is that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and if this holds true, then they should all get ONE VOTE.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-01 10:23pm

On top of this all, one of the principles of this country is that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and if this holds true, then they should all get ONE VOTE.

Not exact. The "one man, one vote" principle does not appear in the Constitution.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2003-07-02 12:34am

Actually, depending on where you are in the world (i'm in Canada) there are agencies that help the homeless get what they need to get a job. Granted, they are underfunded....

Post by **Edi** » 2003-07-02 03:31am

Durran Korr wrote:
On top of this all, one of the principles of this country is that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and if this holds true, then they should all get ONE VOTE.
Not exact. The "one man, one vote" principle does not appear in the Constitution.

But it's still one of the foundational principles your country is built upon, is it not? Appealing to its explicit nonappearance in the Constitutional text sounds like you're trying to find a way to twist the letter of the law to ignore its spirit, especially since many of the amendments (especially the ones that deal with voting rights) seem to incorporate that principle as a premise. At least that's about the only way many of them make sense.

Edi

Post by **Steve** » 2003-07-02 05:29am

Well, the Constitution never explicitly says that all people get a vote, but, in every Amendment where voting rights are mentioned, it is connected to citizenship as a right thereof.

And the Constitution is very clear on the criteria of citizenship:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As for voting rights?

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Amendment XXIV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment XXVI

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

I think it's pretty clear, but it may just be me.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-02 06:31am

Steve wrote:
Amendment XXIV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

I think it's pretty clear, but it may just be me.

If there is no tax for you to pay then you're not being denied the right to vote for failure to a tax. If those people get upset then they can protest to get taxed.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-02 08:02am

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Amendment XXIV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment XXVI

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

These only outline the criteria by which you cannot deny voting rights. The Constitution doesn't require states to allow their citizens to vote at all, in fact. Unless I'm glossing over something huge.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-02 08:04am

Edi wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
On top of this all, one of the principles of this country is that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and if this holds true, then they should all get ONE VOTE.
Not exact. The "one man, one vote" principle does not appear in the Constitution.
But it's still one of the foundational principles your country is built upon, is it not? Appealing to its explicit nonappearance in the Constitutional text sounds like you're trying to find a way to twist the letter of the law to ignore its spirit, especially since many of the amendments (especially the ones that deal with voting rights) seem to incorporate that principle as a premise. At least that's about the only way many of them make sense.

Edi

Voting rights for all is certainly not one of the foundational principles of this country. That came later on.

GREAHSIAM · Post by **GREAHSIAM** » 2003-07-02 08:22pm

The people who followed that system also liked to say "Sieg HEIL".
Limbaugh would fit in quite well. Perhaps as Minister of Propaganda.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-07-02 08:29pm

Okay, so what we have here is a second-hand quote from somebody who heard Limbaugh's substitute say something stupid.

I mean, granted, the quote itself (however accurate it may be) is interesting, in a lab experiment kind of way, but it's not Limbaugh.

Maybe it's something he'd agree with -- maybe it's something he smacked the shit out of the subbie for. Who knows?