The Tea Party knows no shame

[the last yatto]

They don't call it voodoo economics for nothing, heck some banks might even target left leaning states for foreclosures.

[Iason Ouabache]

I think this is actually a good thing. They're keeping the crazy up and even turning it up. I hope it will turn off a lot of their supporters.

I see the Tea Baggers crashing soon for one of two reasons:

1) They go full on Ax Crazy and push even more (relatively) moderates out of their movement until the only people left have a tendency to drool all over themselves. I have my doubts about this one since they've said some of the most bat shit insane so far and are still going strong.

2) The people they elected sell them down the river. Tea Baggers wake up and realize that politicians don't actually keep their campaign promises. Party's over. Everyone goes home to cry in their beer.

Either way, as soon as the economy gets better they'll run out of rage-ahol and find something better to do.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Either way, as soon as the economy gets better they'll run out of rage-ahol and find something better to do.

Unless scientists find the cure for aging sometime soon I dont think any of us will live to see that day.

[Iason Ouabache]

Either way, as soon as the economy gets better they'll run out of rage-ahol and find something better to do.

Unless scientists find the cure for aging sometime soon I dont think any of us will live to see that day.

Economy is starting to recover already. The jobless rate is lagging behind though. Companies are still skittish and have been using temporary help instead of hiring permanents. If that trend reverses itself next year we'll be out of this hole in no time.


Who says you need a PhD in economics to sound convincing?

[Cain]

What percentage of voters would something like this disenfranchise?

I know a large portion of the lower enlisted would be disenfranchised by this.

I'm pretty sure the Teabaggers would let the (remaining living) soldiers vote.

Which would of course be nothing like the Roman Republic's policies towards military service.  Or indeed the Starship Troopers movie.  We can only hope the Teabaggers are conquered by a fleet of giant alien bugs, led by what looks like a giant vagina.

[Cain]

Either way, as soon as the economy gets better they'll run out of rage-ahol and find something better to do.

Unless scientists find the cure for aging sometime soon I dont think any of us will live to see that day.

Economy is starting to recover already. The jobless rate is lagging behind though. Companies are still skittish and have been using temporary help instead of hiring permanents. If that trend reverses itself next year we'll be out of this hole in no time.


Who says you need a PhD in economics to sound convincing?

As far as I'm concerned, joblessness is a problem with the economy.  And the fundamentals of the US economy are weak, built on mass fraud, financialization of pretty much everything and the rest of the world being willing to support US deficit spending in return for military protection.

In fact, a double-dip has already hit house prices in the US http://www.businessinsider.com/the-housing-problem-in-3-pictures-2010-11

Most of the indicators of "recovery" are purposefully faked bank "stress tests", where banks were given cheat sheets by the Fed, ongoing international bailouts (like those in the EU, where money is being lent to banks owned whole or in part by other banks who were principal agents in the crisis), and the stock market, which, as we know, is about as representative of the economy as Lady Gaga is representative of Idaho voters.

[Cain]

They don't call it voodoo economics for nothing, heck some banks might even target left leaning states for foreclosures.

You read John Quiggin's book yet?  Its on my list, but I've got to read Yves Smith's Econned first.

[the last yatto]

Don't remeber the book from down under

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

Hypothetically speaking . . . if this went through . . . and you had to own property, we'll specify land to exclude the hypothetical reintroduction of slavery, would that include people who are still paying off their loans to the bank? Or would the bank get a vote for every 'home-owner' it had enabled? Or would the bank have to approve the 'home-owner's vote before it counted? Would the Church get a vote for every x amount of acres it owned? Would that give the Pope voting rights here in the USA or the right to control the votes of regular church-goers? What about colleges? The one I worked at owned a ton of land and was affiliated with the local diocese. Would that give the priests' votes more weight per acre?

Man. I totally want to write a story about how that would work in a dystopian future.

[Persona Facade]

This sounds similar to the argument that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote.
The difference being how discretely the government limits and regulates the voter pool.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hmmm...Can't find anything in the constitution about a property requirement.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think this is actually a good thing. They're keeping the crazy up and even turning it up. I hope it will turn off a lot of their supporters.

I see the Tea Baggers crashing soon for one of two reasons:

1) They go full on Ax Crazy and push even more (relatively) moderates out of their movement until the only people left have a tendency to drool all over themselves. I have my doubts about this one since they've said some of the most bat shit insane so far and are still going strong.

2) The people they elected sell them down the river. Tea Baggers wake up and realize that politicians don't actually keep their campaign promises. Party's over. Everyone goes home to cry in their beer.

Either way, as soon as the economy gets better they'll run out of rage-ahol and find something better to do.

#2 won't work either, because we're dealing with a religion, here, not a political party.

The dumbfucks already voted for people who promised to fuck them.  A little more fucking won't change their minds, and if they can't vote, it doesn't matter, does it?

[Adios]

Hmmm...Can't find anything in the constitution about a property requirement.

Haven't you heard? They intend to alter the constitution to what ever they want it to be.

[Requia ☣]

Hmmm...Can't find anything in the constitution about a property requirement.

IIRC there were two states that had a property requirement.  One required that you owned land in a town or lived in a town for a full year in order to vote in town elections, the other required property of 40$ (this need not be land) for any voting.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hmmm...Can't find anything in the constitution about a property requirement.

IIRC there were two states that had a property requirement.  One required that you owned land in a town or lived in a town for a full year in order to vote in town elections, the other required property of 40$ (this need not be land) for any voting.

There were definately more than two, though each colony/state had its own requirements. Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island were among those that had the land owner requirement.

However, it is important to remember that the US was not a "democracy" in the 1700's in fact most of the founding fathers thought democracy=anarchy. Here's a quote from John Adams:

Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

(Federalist Papers)

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps/democracy/main.html   <--- some other quotes from 'founding fathers'

I wonder if the Tea Party would like us to re-institute the literacy tests that once existed for voting in some states?