http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/
QuoteTea Party Nation President Judson Phillips hosted the program and discussed changes that he felt should be made to voting rights in the United States. He explained that the founders of the country originally put "certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote." He continued, "One of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community ... I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners"
Can you say
aristocracy kids?
\
:fnord:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on December 04, 2010, 09:03:51 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/
QuoteTea Party Nation President Judson Phillips hosted the program and discussed changes that he felt should be made to voting rights in the United States. He explained that the founders of the country originally put "certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote." He continued, "One of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community ... I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners"
Can you say aristocracy kids?
\
:fnord:
:facepalm:
I actually got into an argument with a guy who was making a case for an aristocracy.
every time I saw him over the next 3 months I wanted to stab him in the neck.
fortunately I don't have to see him anymore.
What the hell. they really aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
How about this, instead; if you want to own property, you are required to vote.
Was there ever a limit as to how little property you had to have in order to be eligible to vote?
Could you buy one square foot on the side of some hill, and that would work?
Would a timeshare count? Would you only be able to vote when it was your week to have it?
Translation:
People who own property aren't :aaa:Socialists :aaa: so in order to get those pesky Socialists out of the way, take the vote away from a vast segment of the population who live in, oh I dunno, apartments or what have you.
What happens if you live with your parents until the age of 24 and then get an apartment? Do you lose voting rights until you buy a house?
:argh!:
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on December 04, 2010, 09:13:57 PM
Was there ever a limit as to how little property you had to have in order to be eligible to vote?
Could you buy one square foot on the side of some hill, and that would work?
Would a timeshare count? Would you only be able to vote when it was your week to have it?
Good question.
:facepalm:
What the fucking hell?
We have to do what the framers set out to do. We must also make it so that you can only vote if you're white, male, over the age of 23, and are not a slave or indentured servant.
Yep. Because that's what makes a representative republic.
:lulz:
It just keeps getting better.
How about a just a mayonnaise jar full of dirt?
Or even a salt shaker? Salt is a kind of dirt.
While we are at it, lets only let white males over the age of 21 vote.
Fucking tea baggers. I should tea bag some of them.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 09:19:42 PM
We have to do what the framers set out to do. We must also make it so that you can only vote if you're white, male, over the age of 23, and are not a slave or indentured servant.
Yep. Because that's what makes a representative republic.
fukc yuo blight. I WAS TRYING TO POST THAT THN I GOT DISTRACTED!!!!!!
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 04, 2010, 09:23:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 09:19:42 PM
We have to do what the framers set out to do. We must also make it so that you can only vote if you're white, male, over the age of 23, and are not a slave or indentured servant.
Yep. Because that's what makes a representative republic.
fukc yuo blight. I WAS TRYING TO POST THAT THN I GOT DISTRACTED!!!!!!
You only have yourself to blame. :D
I'm getting the point where I want to troll each and every Tea Bagger I see, no matter how normally nice to me they are, no matter where they are.
Quote from: Hover Cat on December 04, 2010, 09:32:26 PM
I'm getting the point where I want to troll each and every Tea Bagger I see, no matter how normally nice to me they are, no matter where they are.
You should show them the errors of their ways. This is some good evidence for that.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 09:26:09 PM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 04, 2010, 09:23:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 09:19:42 PM
We have to do what the framers set out to do. We must also make it so that you can only vote if you're white, male, over the age of 23, and are not a slave or indentured servant.
Yep. Because that's what makes a representative republic.
fukc yuo blight. I WAS TRYING TO POST THAT THN I GOT DISTRACTED!!!!!!
You only have yourself to blame. :D
PRETTY LADY WAS TALKING TO ME I WAS POWERLESS!!!!!!!
Quote from: Hover Cat on December 04, 2010, 09:32:26 PM
I'm getting the point where I want to troll each and every Tea Bagger I see, no matter how normally nice to me they are, no matter where they are.
Me too.
My entire town will hate me. :lulz: I don't think I'll mind.
I must be a bad person. I am laughing my ass off about this.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on December 04, 2010, 09:22:02 PM
How about a just a mayonnaise jar full of dirt?
Or even a salt shaker? Salt is a kind of dirt.
I read this and thought about Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow prancing around singing "I've got a jar of dirt". I think if they swing this then you should be required to carry a jar of dirt from your property around with you as proof.
What percentage of voters would something like this disenfranchise?
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 04, 2010, 09:43:21 PM
What percentage of voters would something like this disenfranchise?
I know a large portion of the lower enlisted would be disenfranchised by this.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 04, 2010, 09:43:21 PM
What percentage of voters would something like this disenfranchise?
(http://i54.tinypic.com/9jzsxl.jpg)
Percentage of homeowners by race.
Approximately 33% of Americans are renters, according to the National Multi-Housing Council.
Damn. Hmmm, that would in no way swing every election to the right. Would it? :lulz:
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 04, 2010, 09:49:51 PM
Approximately 33% of Americans are renters, according to the National Multi-Housing Council.
Damn. Hmmm, that would in no way swing every election to the right. Would it? :lulz:
Considering that renting is a fairly urban phenomenon and people on the left tend to live in cities..... it's like a reptile closely related to the dreaded Gerrymander
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 09:55:00 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 04, 2010, 09:49:51 PM
Approximately 33% of Americans are renters, according to the National Multi-Housing Council.
Damn. Hmmm, that would in no way swing every election to the right. Would it? :lulz:
Considering that renting is a fairly urban phenomenon and people on the left tend to live in cities..... it's like a reptile closely related to the dreaded Gerrymander
Yeah, the brilliant part of it is that they are totally hosing themselves, if this goes through. It's the delusions of the not-very-bright wanna-be elite.
Not that it has any chance in hell to go through.
Quote from: Nigel on December 04, 2010, 10:03:08 PM
Not that it has any chance in hell to go through.
Depends. Is Idol on?
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.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 10:32:49 PM
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.
They have 2 years.
Most of us here are already labeled Domestic Extremists just because we don't agree with what TSA is doing. I expect Domestic Extremist internet User to be a new phrase before too long. Then DHS can restrict your internet usage to State Approved Sites only. This is going to be a fun 2 years.
They don't call it voodoo economics for nothing, heck some banks might even target left leaning states for foreclosures.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 10:32:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 05, 2010, 01:18:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on December 05, 2010, 01:48:46 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 05, 2010, 01:18:35 AM
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? ;)
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 04, 2010, 09:46:55 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 04, 2010, 09:43:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 05, 2010, 03:02:02 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on December 05, 2010, 01:48:46 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 05, 2010, 01:18:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Pēleus on December 04, 2010, 11:39:40 PM
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.
Don't remeber the book from down under
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.
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.
Hmmm...Can't find anything in the constitution about a property requirement.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on December 05, 2010, 01:18:35 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 10:32:49 PM
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?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2010, 03:25:21 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2010, 03:25:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 06, 2010, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2010, 03:25:21 PM
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:
Quote
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.
QuoteDemocracies 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?
QuoteConnecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island
I find it interesting that those three are the ones that keep coming up when I have this conversation, since none of those three had anything about voting rights in their state constitutions (except Delaware, which just said they were going to preserve the old voting rights system). Making it impossible for me to confirm it.
I don't suppose you have a source for that (not just somebody saying its true, but able to point to a bill or section of the state code that backs it up).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 06, 2010, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2010, 03:25:21 PM
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.
Talking about the United States constitution, with regard to federal elections.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 06, 2010, 06:03:07 PM
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:
And they were right.
But what's your point? Democracies and republics both involve the franchise.