Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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....!
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.
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...
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?
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.
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
Don't confuse them by introducing facts here.
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?