The Real Problem with America

[Care4all]

hey rabbi and political chick and libapocalypse...how about we give the wealthiest 10 votes each and then take away votes for each individual as they make less money and pay less in taxes....while you are at it?

 

[The Rabbi]

So, basically, poor people can't vote?

If you have no stake in the system, nothing to lose, why should you have a say in how other people's money is spent?

Your first two statements are presumptions. Even if I was on welfare I would still have a stake in the system. Why should you have a say in how other people's money is spent? It works both ways, you are voting on how money is spent that doesn't belong to you, why shouldn't I be able to?

If you have nothing of value to lose then you have no stake in the system. Being dependent on the system to feed, house and clothe you doesn't give you a stake.

 

[The Rabbi]

hey rabbi and political chick and libapocalypse...how about we give the wealthiest 10 votes each and then take away votes for each individual as they make less money and pay less in taxes....while you are at it?

Hey dipshit. There were property qualifications to vote in most states for a hundred years and we elected people like Washington and Jefferson. Now we elect people like Clinton and Obama. Consider that first.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, basically, poor people can't vote?

If you have no stake in the system, nothing to lose, why should you have a say in how other people's money is spent?

SHEESH....and republicans CLAIM it is the liberals pitting the welathier against the poor....

you are the second republican in 24 hours that has done such....

why do republicans have to lie about themselves pitting the rich against the poor saying that this is what liberals do when it is THEIR AMMO....THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME.....what an elitist attitude Rabbi!

Please care, you know that generalizing all of us R's with the Rabbi is extremely unfair. There are quite a few libs that I believe you would not want to be generalized with either. Give the credit where it is due


The issue with disallowing one group to vote in favor of another is that group looses all control over the direction of the government and their place within it. Any system that delineating the haves from the have nots is the WORST way to divide a vote as it makes a clear path to exploitation of the have nots. Given enough time, slaver would begin again to sound like a valid direction if those that were to be enslaved did not have a say and those that would be the masters get to make the decisions. EVERYONE here has a 'steak' in the system as you put it. Even if they do not contribute a net positive they still have a clear steak. Granted, this causes the issues that people are facing today: politicians giving what is not theirs to give to get votes but there is always the balancing factor here because those that are taken from also get a voice. Take one groups voice away and you end up with the remaining group tyrannizing the other. Eventually people will get fed up and get off their asses to vote if it gets bad enough. Realize that our voter turnout in this country is pathetic, mainly because we do have it so good. When things get bad enough for a certain group they WILL turn out in greater numbers and turn the tide. It is unfortunate that the people need it to become so bad before they actually realize they have the power at the voting booth but that is the sad truth.


Restricting the right to vote is the FASTEST way to tyranny by a class, certainly faster than your fears of socialism. It is disingenuous to decry the rout of socialism to tyranny and then support a worse method of the same ending.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you have no stake in the system, nothing to lose, why should you have a say in how other people's money is spent?

Your first two statements are presumptions. Even if I was on welfare I would still have a stake in the system. Why should you have a say in how other people's money is spent? It works both ways, you are voting on how money is spent that doesn't belong to you, why shouldn't I be able to?

If you have nothing of value to lose then you have no stake in the system. Being dependent on the system to feed, house and clothe you doesn't give you a stake.

You have something to loose, your FREEDOM and LIBERTY. Both are FAR more important than your belongings. You are confusing a stake in the system with financially supporting that system.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your first two statements are presumptions. Even if I was on welfare I would still have a stake in the system. Why should you have a say in how other people's money is spent? It works both ways, you are voting on how money is spent that doesn't belong to you, why shouldn't I be able to?

If you have nothing of value to lose then you have no stake in the system. Being dependent on the system to feed, house and clothe you doesn't give you a stake.

You have something to loose, your FREEDOM and LIBERTY. Both are FAR more important than your belongings. You are confusing a stake in the system with financially supporting that system.

Your freedom and liberty have no economic value. And if you are depending on the gov't for your housing and other needs then you have already forfeited those things.

 

[Care4all]

hey rabbi and political chick and libapocalypse...how about we give the wealthiest 10 votes each and then take away votes for each individual as they make less money and pay less in taxes....while you are at it?

Hey dipshit. There were property qualifications to vote in most states for a hundred years and we elected people like Washington and Jefferson. Now we elect people like Clinton and Obama. Consider that first.

how convenient of you to leave out the 2 Bush presidents....


we are on to you rabbi....!

 

[Bfgrn]

I disagree with both ideas and think they will make things worse.
The reason for bad politicians is a bad electorate. Improve the electorate and you improve the people they elect.
Property ownership or freehold requirements for voting will change most of that.

What are freehold requirements?

He wants only wealthy landowners to be allolwed to vote.

You know Rabbi.....200 years behind the times

They TRIED that...it was called feudalism

 

[Woyzeck]

hey rabbi and political chick and libapocalypse...how about we give the wealthiest 10 votes each and then take away votes for each individual as they make less money and pay less in taxes....while you are at it?

Hey dipshit. There were property qualifications to vote in most states for a hundred years and we elected people like Washington and Jefferson. Now we elect people like Clinton and Obama. Consider that first.

To be fair, you're comparing overly-deified revolutionary war heroes to guys who haven't had that same opportunity as they did. Guys who we constantly worship to guys we still see as very, very human, whom most of us have a firsthand account of their presidencies.

But yes, obviously once we abolished property qualifications, the quality of presidents and leaders went down. It's not like we became an industrial or technological leader or one of the most powerful countries on earth by electing leaders without property restrictions.

Oh wait...

 

[The Rabbi]

hey rabbi and political chick and libapocalypse...how about we give the wealthiest 10 votes each and then take away votes for each individual as they make less money and pay less in taxes....while you are at it?

Hey dipshit. There were property qualifications to vote in most states for a hundred years and we elected people like Washington and Jefferson. Now we elect people like Clinton and Obama. Consider that first.

how convenient of you to leave out the 2 Bush presidents....


we are on to you rabbi....!

Wow, it's Foxfyre's W Factor all over again.
Nothing of substance. When confronted with facts you run away.
No, I'd say I'm on to you. You are a flaming incompetent in debate.

 

[Care4all]

Hey dipshit. There were property qualifications to vote in most states for a hundred years and we elected people like Washington and Jefferson. Now we elect people like Clinton and Obama. Consider that first.

how convenient of you to leave out the 2 Bush presidents....


we are on to you rabbi....!

Wow, it's Foxfyre's W Factor all over again.
Nothing of substance. When confronted with facts you run away.
No, I'd say I'm on to you. You are a flaming incompetent in debate.

well? please tell us why you did it? wouldn't your point have been made clearer if you had included them?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

hey rabbi and political chick and libapocalypse...how about we give the wealthiest 10 votes each and then take away votes for each individual as they make less money and pay less in taxes....while you are at it?

Hey dipshit. There were property qualifications to vote in most states for a hundred years and we elected people like Washington and Jefferson. Now we elect people like Clinton and Obama. Consider that first.

To be fair, you're comparing overly-deified revolutionary war heroes to guys who haven't had that same opportunity as they did. Guys who we constantly worship to guys we still see as very, very human, whom most of us have a firsthand account of their presidencies.

But yes, obviously once we abolished property qualifications, the quality of presidents and leaders went down. It's not like we became an industrial or technological leader or one of the most powerful countries on earth by electing leaders without property restrictions.

Oh wait...

.....We're still overly-dependent-upon our own damned LAZINESS!!!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

how convenient of you to leave out the 2 Bush presidents....


we are on to you rabbi....!

Wow, it's Foxfyre's W Factor all over again.
Nothing of substance. When confronted with facts you run away.
No, I'd say I'm on to you. You are a flaming incompetent in debate.

well? please tell us why you did it? wouldn't your point have been made clearer if you had included them?

No. I figured rabid Bush-haters like you would make the point for me anyway. I was not disappointed.
But how about dealing with the substance of the argument? Oh yeah, you're incapable of that.

 

[editec]

I see the anti-democratic sentiment continues.

What many of you people claiming to love this nation really want is a declared oligarchy.

You might as well admit that you can't stand the idea of democracy, and be done with it.

 

[The Rabbi]

I see the anti-democratic sentiment continues.

What many of you people claiming to love this nation really want is a declared oligarchy.

You might as well admit that you can't stand the idea of democracy, and be done with it.

We aren't a democracy. Never were. Country wasn't set up that way. Get over it.

 

[Avatar4321]

What are freehold requirements?

He wants only wealthy landowners to be allolwed to vote.

You know Rabbi.....200 years behind the times

They TRIED that...it was called feudalism

When exactly did land owners vote for anything during feudalism? The second voting started taking place, the systems stopped being feudalism.

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't confuse them by introducing facts here.

 

[Woyzeck]

Don't confuse them by introducing facts here.

Facts like once we phased out property requirements for voting, our leaders or the country didn't actually decline at all, but had the inverse effect of making us best in the world?

 

[Toro]

Not enough Canadians.

THAT'S the real problem with America!

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't confuse them by introducing facts here.

Facts like once we phased out property requirements for voting, our leaders or the country didn't actually decline at all, but had the inverse effect of making us best in the world?

Classic illustration of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.
Thanks for pointing that out.