You have a very flawed understanding of human rights.

Natural rights are not things you demand, they are things you already have and would have even if the government refused to recognize them, and as such cannot be anything that would require other people to give you anything.

How many of the rights granted by our constitution am I willing to trample? ALL OF THEM.
That is, one: the right to vote, and only to such an extent as to guarantee a measure of protection to our economic freedom by keeping the people who write the laws uninfluenced by the 'moochers and looters'. I'm not talking about disenfranchising a race or even a specific socioeconomic class. I'm talking about disenfranchising those who would only use their power to take advantage of the fact that other people are paying the bills.

It boils down to a matter of economic freedom. You have a right to keep what you make, and to expect something in exchange for giving something up. What you do not have a right to do is expect someone else to give you something for nothing, and unfortunately it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that if you are a negative taxpayer and you vote for a candidate, the sort of candidate you would elect is one who would approve of your behavior and act to support it. That is something America can no longer afford, if it ever really could in the first place.

"Why is the amount needed to "earn" a vote irrelevant? You're gonna have to peg it somewhere, and I'd like to hear what you think a fair number is."
I don't think any number is a fair number which is why your question is irrelevant. The amount of money you pay in taxes minus the amount you take personally in government assistance is what I believe to be the reasonable basis for deciding whether you should vote. How much each of those amounts is, is less important than whether their sum is a positive or negative number.

"We still need to define assistance. Is a student loan assistance?" Until it is paid back, yes.
"Is a tax break for small business owners assistance?" Yes, that would absolutely qualify as assistance-- if you can agree that if I were to have raided your fridge of two meals last night, and then I raid your fridge of only one meal tonight, then that qualifies as me giving you one meal tonight. Otherwise, no.
"How about a huge tax abatement for a wealthy land developer?" If I steal nothing from your fridge tonight, then I've given you two meals, don't you agree? I'm 'assisting' you by sitting on my ass and not raiding your fridge at all!

But mathematically, paying less in taxes has the same effect on the formula as receiving assistance.

"Secondly, please direct me to any section of the constitution that ties tax contribution to voting rights... "
I thought it was obvious that I'm arguing for an amendment.

Easy.

One of the driving arguments for the Revolution, was 'No Taxation without Representation'. England was taking our money without allowing us to, for instance, have seats in Parliament where the American colonists would be able to participate in deciding how to spend that tax money.

It's a simple corollary that it would be similarly wrong to have representation without taxation -- if it is wrong for the government to take a person's money and not be accountable in some way to that person, it is also wrong for a person to take money from the taxpayers and demand anything-- for example, political power-- in addition.

"How much money does one need to make a year to qualify to vote?"
Irrelevant.

"What level of government assistance should deny you the right to vote?"
1 cent, net. As long as the total amount of taxes you have paid exceeds the amount of assistance you have taken, you should have a right to vote for the people responsible for spending that money.
If you take more than you contribute, then it would be utterly irrational to expect any 'right' to elect the government, since there is no moral basis whatsoever to claim any right to have a say in electing a body that is not funded in any way by you.

Are you ready to get rational yet?

Let me tell you how the government could kick this recession in the nuts if they dared to have a little spine:

1. Abolish corporate income taxes.
2. Abolish minimum wage.
3. Slash the federal budget to $1T.

Why? Because they paid money for the ad space. If they want to give Breitbart money to support websites that are probably going to strengthen the Tea Partiers a lot more than THETEAPARTYISOVER will ever manage to weaken them, I see no huge problem with taking their money.

Admittedly, it does seem a bit callous to take advantage of the mentally impaired.

The only remaining question that appears to have any weight at all, relating to his citizenship is how Obama traveled to Pakistan in his youth, where it is supposed that he claimed Indonesian citizenship in order to get an Indonesian passport, which he had to have obtained in order to be able to get into Pakistan.

Whether there is anything to that question remains to be seen, but it is certainly irrational to conflate "Passporterism" with "Birtherism" simply because they deal with two entirely separate points of contention. That they would both lead to the same object, of disqualifying Barack H. Obama from office, must be treated as coincidence even though many of the same people are behind both questions.

The alternative assumption is that the Birthers have, by virtue of their inane pursuit of Barry's birth certificate long after reasonable people should have put the issue to rest, turned everything else they touch into a credibility vacuum. This is not at all implausible, but nevertheless it shows a certain amount of intellectual laziness.

If I were inclined to indulge in conspiracy theory, I would suggest that if Obama's inner circle knew that there could be a problem about a certain passport, it would be in their interest to use a red herring, like the birth certificate question, to exhaust the credibility of anyone inclined to investigate the circumstances of the passport.

MADNESS?!

It would have been great if all these technical achievements (many of which are astounding to consider) were not wasted on a script that is nearly a Xerox copy of Disney's Pocahontas.

It's not interesting at all. Bush pops into your head in response to any fictional warmonger. Like Pavlov's dog, you can't stop slobbering.

It is a stretch because we are expected to accept that in the future,we put a guy in charge of an extrasolar project who is utterly oblivious to the possibility of there being other stuff worth a look.

This, after presumably hundreds of years of science fiction and at least a few years exploring a few other stars, we are expected to accept that it has not passed into common wisdom that it is a generally good idea to take some time examining an alien world before rushing in to exploit a single resource.

For example, it would be worth noting on the bottom line the cost of conducting a full-scale war vs. the cost of holding off a low-intensity conflict plus a bit of creative directional mining.

Selfridge is not simply racist and ignorant; he is not even competently single-minded.

Every single allegory in this film is an insult to rational people.