Why doesn't Puerto Rico make Teabaggers' heads explode?

"Yet modern Tea Party-ists are largely silent about American citizens that are, in a way colonists themselves, being taxed without representation."

This seems so random. Any ill in the world, if left unaddressed by the Tea Party, means they aren't to be taken seriously.

Again, PR is not being treated like a colony (i.e. we're not stealing its wealth). So we need something else to blame on the Tea Party - soggy cereal, split ends, the CW...

But the long and short of it is, why should Palin, or any other political figure lead the charge for statehood for PR when the people of PR have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested?Don't you know?

Why are you asking this of the Tea Party folks?Isn't it obvious? Its not like Puerto Rico was discovered last week. Why didn't you ask this question a year ago of Republicans or Democrats?Why am I asking it now? Last year they were voting on it. What is your beef with the Tea Party? What is your love affair with them?Do you even know who they are, how they got started, or what they stand for?Yep. I've gone over that before. Do you know their birthday? I'm thinking the answer is no to all three.I'm sure you are. Why are you allowing mainstream media to tell you what to think about an issue you know nothing of?Is that a guess? It sounds like a guess. Okay, I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong by producing the mainstream media news story that influenced me in the last week or so. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Please provide a list of all mainstream media. I'll help you get started. We'll start the list with a cable TV operation called Fox News (owned by News Corp).

"Yet modern Tea Party-ists are largely silent about American citizens that are, in a way colonists themselves, being taxed without representation."

This seems so random. Any ill in the world, if left unaddressed by the Tea Party, means they aren't to be taken seriously.

Again, PR is not being treated like a colony (i.e. we're not stealing its wealth). So we need something else to blame on the Tea Party - soggy cereal, split ends, the CW... Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

So Tea Party folk don't really care about taxation without representation. That's all just rhetoric. What they REALLY care about is lower income taxes. They don't see Puerto Rico as a problem, but as a tax paradise!

"Puerto Rican US Citizens pay taxes...just not income taxes while they're in PR...yet don't have a vote in Congress. If we did that to you would you call it oppression?"

Huh? You could be from Timbuktu, if you are legally in the US and earning money, you will pay taxes on it...with no voting rights. Why is this surprising? Why are we talking about Puerto Rico anyway? Now I've got West Side Story stuck in my head.

The point Galt was trying to make is that in the US, there are almost as many voters who receive a net benefit from the government as there are who pay taxes in to the government. When the takers achieve a majority, there will be no restraints on government spending. Already our national debt exceeds our Gross National Product. This cannot be sustained if we are to remain a free country. And yes, our Founders seriously debated whether only allowing property owners the vote. They opted against that in order to win more popular support for the war. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Following this logic. since the Red States (as a whole) receive more Federal dollars than the Blue states, shouldn't we suspend there voting? (just yanking your chain)

But to get on my soapbox, why do people speak of the founding fathers like they were Gods. They were men, the constitution is falliable. Slavery come to mind. That's why we can amend the constitution.

Hey Longer, why so bitter? Given your absence I would guess that your new asshole has arrived (and not a moment too soon). I understand the one you have now has a very large arthropod wedged in it. Get well soon...

I get your drift BigMike, but my point was the danger of having a majority of voters receiving more from the government than they pay in. They will always vote to take from the net tax payers. And Reagan did balloon the debt, but not at the rate President Obama is, and now our total debt exceeds our Gross National Product. This is dangerous. The world is already moving away from the dollar as the medium of international trade. If the dollar gets much shakier, we could experience hyperinflation that would rival pre WWII Germany.

Liberty is at stake here.

And for the record, Longer, I find you hilarious. And as a Tea Party sympathizer, I would fully support giving Puerto Rico, Guam and any other of our protectorates independence. I'd kind of like to keep the Virgin Islands, but that's just me. But right now, I would prefer that Congress get spending under control before they start debating independence for Puerto Rico.

Kind of off topic and I do apologize but I just have to say that independence from the US is not necessarily a good thing. Looked at what happened to the Philippines once they got their independence (1946). When the Philippines got their independence from the US things got horrible in the way of politics and economy. They closed the bases (Subic Bay was the last closed in 1992), which hurt our economy tremendously and the government became even more corrupt than it already was. Yes it did take time for it to all go to hell but many citizens of the Philippines still think that we should have never gotten out independence and closed the bases. My point I guess is that if PR wants their independence then let them have it but it does not mean that for them it is a good idea. They can learn the hard way like the government of the Philippines had to learn.

COG you are there many other things at this point that need to be addressed before something like the independence of PR.

Hey Longer, why so bitter? Given your absence I would guess that your new asshole has arrived (and not a moment too soon). I understand the one you have now has a very large arthropod wedged in it. Get well soon... Originally Posted by john_galt

I'll take your post as proof that you can not only lose an argument by resorting to insults, but by resorting to obtuse insults as well. Please post something that's coherent when insulting me in the future. Kthxbye.

And for the record, Longer, I find you hilarious. And as a Tea Party sympathizer, I would fully support giving Puerto Rico, Guam and any other of our protectorates independence. I'd kind of like to keep the Virgin Islands, but that's just me. But right now, I would prefer that Congress get spending under control before they start debating independence for Puerto Rico. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Thank you. I laugh at your posts too.

They used to be called the Virgin Islands...before I went there. We should just make them part of Vermont and call it a day. Could you imagine all the people dreaming about going to Vermont?

Debating independence for Puerto Rico is getting spending under control. Besides, Congress can do more than one thing at a time, and Puerto Rican US citizens shouldn't have to wait forever. Quit procrastinating. That's what got us into trouble with the debt in the first place, btw.

Longer you lost the battle with your first post. Hurling insults (I know, you don't consider them insults but they are) undermined everything you said. As for my previous post, I wasn't trying to say anything so nothing was undermined. I was just trying to insult you and that ain't easy considering the target.

I bet you have a photo shopped picture of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman engaged in coitus don't you. I will also bet that it doesn't turn you on but just makes you mad.

Galt would you do me a favor and change your avatar to one that does not imply any relationship to cats. Cats are superior you know and you should not have them associated with your posts.

Meow

Longer you lost the battle with your first post. Hurling insults (I know, you don't consider them insults but they are) undermined everything you said. As for my previous post, I wasn't trying to say anything so nothing was undermined. I was just trying to insult you and that ain't easy considering the target.

I bet you have a photo shopped picture of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman engaged in coitus don't you. I will also bet that it doesn't turn you on but just makes you mad. Originally Posted by john_galt

COITUS: Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.

...and there are two Ns in Bachmann, idiot.

I don't know what we were betting. Just tell me what I won.

Puerto Rico, US Samoa Islands, and Washington DC are not states and none of them vote in federal elections nor do they representation in the Congress. Game, set, and match!

Galt you lose!!!! 23rd Amendment to the constitution granted 3 electoral votes in Electoral College to DC...They also have a representative delegate to the House of Represntatives, she isnt allowed to vote on the floor but can vote on procedures and in committees her name is Congresswoman Elenor Holmes Norton....The residents of dc have voted in every presidential election since 1964...Now go back to the corner and put on your tinfoil hat