Officials Object To Sex Offenders Voting In New York School Polling Places

[Harpy Eagle]

I am not a Dem but I do fight against those trying to take away a fundamental right and duty of each citizen.

Are you just as adamant about a convicted felon's right to bear arms after they have served their time?

Yes, very much so, probably even more so.

 

[Vastator]

I am not a Dem but I do fight against those trying to take away a fundamental right and duty of each citizen.

Are you just as adamant about a convicted felon's right to bear arms after they have served their time?

Yes, very much so, probably even more so.

I too agree. Free men have every intrinsic right to defend themselves, their families, and their nation as any other free man.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Common ground is always good to find.
As our military is an all voluntary force, with thexception of extreme circumstances that require a draft; few of which amongst us suffered... Joining the military should not confer additional rights, as it is voluntary. Since one could save their meager earnings, and buy land, this securing their vote... I do not see the connection between serving in the military voluntarily, and the right to vote being given carte Blanche.

I do not see a connection to owning land and voting. What is so special about owning land?

It is something you should look into. Owning land, and only land owners being able to vote does a number of things. One being that it keeps people who do not pay taxes into the coffers of the government, from decisions of when, and how taxes should be applied. If only land owners were voting... They would literally be voting on taxing themselves; and as such would be hesitant to increase taxes unless there was a very good reason to do so. (Keep in mind there was no income tax back then, nor should there be now. That wasn't part of the design.)
Secondly It keeps non contributors from making legal determinations as to how the contributors money is spent. Parasites will always vote to promote their own interests at the cost of the host.
But there are many more reasons...

So many false assumptions in one post, it is very impressive you could squeeze them all in.

People that do not own land still pay taxes into the coffers, so you first point is false.

People who do not own land still contribute and owning land is not a sign of contribution.

 

[Polishprince]

Common ground is always good to find.
As our military is an all voluntary force, with thexception of extreme circumstances that require a draft; few of which amongst us suffered... Joining the military should not confer additional rights, as it is voluntary. Since one could save their meager earnings, and buy land, this securing their vote... I do not see the connection between serving in the military voluntarily, and the right to vote being given carte Blanche.

I do not see a connection to owning land and voting. What is so special about owning land?

When that was the rule, you had to own land to vote, Property Tax was the largest tax by far. There was no income or sales tax.

Property ownership insured you had skin in the game

 

[Vastator]

Common ground is always good to find.
As our military is an all voluntary force, with thexception of extreme circumstances that require a draft; few of which amongst us suffered... Joining the military should not confer additional rights, as it is voluntary. Since one could save their meager earnings, and buy land, this securing their vote... I do not see the connection between serving in the military voluntarily, and the right to vote being given carte Blanche.

I do not see a connection to owning land and voting. What is so special about owning land?

It is something you should look into. Owning land, and only land owners being able to vote does a number of things. One being that it keeps people who do not pay taxes into the coffers of the government, from decisions of when, and how taxes should be applied. If only land owners were voting... They would literally be voting on taxing themselves; and as such would be hesitant to increase taxes unless there was a very good reason to do so. (Keep in mind there was no income tax back then, nor should there be now. That wasn't part of the design.)
Secondly It keeps non contributors from making legal determinations as to how the contributors money is spent. Parasites will always vote to promote their own interests at the cost of the host.
But there are many more reasons...

So many false assumptions in one post, it is very impressive you could squeeze them all in.

People that do not own land still pay taxes into the coffers, so you first point is false.

People who do not own land still contribute and owning land is not a sign of contribution.

Not as false as you would like. In order to understand this... You would have to understand the practice of taxation, at the time of our nations founding. Conflating the modern, with the original isn't a valid argument against the original intent.

 

[Godboy]

I am not a Dem but I do fight against those trying to take away a fundamental right and duty of each citizen.

Are you just as adamant about a convicted felon's right to bear arms after they have served their time?

Hes not a democrat; he just votes democrat.

 

[Hiryuu]

I am not a Dem but I do fight against those trying to take away a fundamental right and duty of each citizen.

Are you just as adamant about a convicted felon's right to bear arms after they have served their time?

Hes not a democrat; he just votes democrat.

I'm pretty sure Gator is a lot of things, and likewise not a lot of things, depending on how bad he wants to jerk someone's chain in regards to who they are.

 

[Vastator]

I am not a Dem but I do fight against those trying to take away a fundamental right and duty of each citizen.

Are you just as adamant about a convicted felon's right to bear arms after they have served their time?

Hes not a democrat; he just votes democrat.

I'd disagree with this assesment. This issue in particular goes much deeper than the superficiality of "partisanship". This a much deeper philosophical issue that centers around jurisprudence, and the philosophies regarding crime, and punishment. What it means to be a "free man"; and just what constitutes "cruel, and unusual punishment".

 

[Hiryuu]

I'd disagree with this assesment. This issue in particular goes much deeper than the superficiality of "partisanship". This a much deeper philosophical issue that centers around jurisprudence, and the philosophies regarding crime, and punishment. What it means to be a "free man"; and just what constitutes "cruel, and unusual punishment".

Philosophically, a "free man" asks no one what he can or cannot do. It is only if a person chooses to burden themselves with an obligation to society, that they willingly choose to surrender their freedom.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am not a Dem but I do fight against those trying to take away a fundamental right and duty of each citizen.

Are you just as adamant about a convicted felon's right to bear arms after they have served their time?

Hes not a democrat; he just votes democrat.

Only once, never made that mistake again, here is my voting record for POTUS in my adult lifetime

Johnson - 2016
Johnson - 2012
Barr - 2008
Badnarik - 2004
Browne - 2000
Perot. - 1996
Clinton - 1992
Bush I - 1988
Reagan - 1984

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am not a Dem but I do fight against those trying to take away a fundamental right and duty of each citizen.

Are you just as adamant about a convicted felon's right to bear arms after they have served their time?

Hes not a democrat; he just votes democrat.

I'm pretty sure Gator is a lot of things, and likewise not a lot of things, depending on how bad he wants to jerk someone's chain in regards to who they are.

Are you kidding? I am an open book, my post are consistent from the first day I got here.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Common ground is always good to find.
As our military is an all voluntary force, with thexception of extreme circumstances that require a draft; few of which amongst us suffered... Joining the military should not confer additional rights, as it is voluntary. Since one could save their meager earnings, and buy land, this securing their vote... I do not see the connection between serving in the military voluntarily, and the right to vote being given carte Blanche.

I do not see a connection to owning land and voting. What is so special about owning land?

It is something you should look into. Owning land, and only land owners being able to vote does a number of things. One being that it keeps people who do not pay taxes into the coffers of the government, from decisions of when, and how taxes should be applied. If only land owners were voting... They would literally be voting on taxing themselves; and as such would be hesitant to increase taxes unless there was a very good reason to do so. (Keep in mind there was no income tax back then, nor should there be now. That wasn't part of the design.)
Secondly It keeps non contributors from making legal determinations as to how the contributors money is spent. Parasites will always vote to promote their own interests at the cost of the host.
But there are many more reasons...

So many false assumptions in one post, it is very impressive you could squeeze them all in.

People that do not own land still pay taxes into the coffers, so you first point is false.

People who do not own land still contribute and owning land is not a sign of contribution.

Not as false as you would like. In order to understand this... You would have to understand the practice of taxation, at the time of our nations founding. Conflating the modern, with the original isn't a valid argument against the original intent.

But we are in the modern and not the original days, so any reasoning that made sense then no longer does.

So, is it just the land ownership or do you want to restrict it to white males also, like the original intent?

Was talking about this with my wife at the grocery store and she wondered if you considered people who still owed a bank money on their property to the bank land owners or does the bank own it till it is all paid for?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Common ground is always good to find.
As our military is an all voluntary force, with thexception of extreme circumstances that require a draft; few of which amongst us suffered... Joining the military should not confer additional rights, as it is voluntary. Since one could save their meager earnings, and buy land, this securing their vote... I do not see the connection between serving in the military voluntarily, and the right to vote being given carte Blanche.

I do not see a connection to owning land and voting. What is so special about owning land?

When that was the rule, you had to own land to vote, Property Tax was the largest tax by far. There was no income or sales tax.

Property ownership insured you had skin in the game

Times have changed, I do not own property right now and I have just a much skin in the game as anyone.

 

[Vastator]

Common ground is always good to find.
As our military is an all voluntary force, with thexception of extreme circumstances that require a draft; few of which amongst us suffered... Joining the military should not confer additional rights, as it is voluntary. Since one could save their meager earnings, and buy land, this securing their vote... I do not see the connection between serving in the military voluntarily, and the right to vote being given carte Blanche.

I do not see a connection to owning land and voting. What is so special about owning land?

It is something you should look into. Owning land, and only land owners being able to vote does a number of things. One being that it keeps people who do not pay taxes into the coffers of the government, from decisions of when, and how taxes should be applied. If only land owners were voting... They would literally be voting on taxing themselves; and as such would be hesitant to increase taxes unless there was a very good reason to do so. (Keep in mind there was no income tax back then, nor should there be now. That wasn't part of the design.)
Secondly It keeps non contributors from making legal determinations as to how the contributors money is spent. Parasites will always vote to promote their own interests at the cost of the host.
But there are many more reasons...

So many false assumptions in one post, it is very impressive you could squeeze them all in.

People that do not own land still pay taxes into the coffers, so you first point is false.

People who do not own land still contribute and owning land is not a sign of contribution.

Not as false as you would like. In order to understand this... You would have to understand the practice of taxation, at the time of our nations founding. Conflating the modern, with the original isn't a valid argument against the original intent.

But we are in the modern and not the original days, so any reasoning that made sense then no longer does.

So, is it just the land ownership or do you want to restrict it to white males also, like the original intent?

Was talking about this with my wife at the grocery store and she wondered if you considered people who still owed a bank money on their property to the bank land owners or does the bank own it till it is all paid for?

Reason always makes sense. Otherwise it wouldn’t be reasonable.

 

[Vastator]

Common ground is always good to find.
As our military is an all voluntary force, with thexception of extreme circumstances that require a draft; few of which amongst us suffered... Joining the military should not confer additional rights, as it is voluntary. Since one could save their meager earnings, and buy land, this securing their vote... I do not see the connection between serving in the military voluntarily, and the right to vote being given carte Blanche.

I do not see a connection to owning land and voting. What is so special about owning land?

It is something you should look into. Owning land, and only land owners being able to vote does a number of things. One being that it keeps people who do not pay taxes into the coffers of the government, from decisions of when, and how taxes should be applied. If only land owners were voting... They would literally be voting on taxing themselves; and as such would be hesitant to increase taxes unless there was a very good reason to do so. (Keep in mind there was no income tax back then, nor should there be now. That wasn't part of the design.)
Secondly It keeps non contributors from making legal determinations as to how the contributors money is spent. Parasites will always vote to promote their own interests at the cost of the host.
But there are many more reasons...

So many false assumptions in one post, it is very impressive you could squeeze them all in.

People that do not own land still pay taxes into the coffers, so you first point is false.

People who do not own land still contribute and owning land is not a sign of contribution.

Not as false as you would like. In order to understand this... You would have to understand the practice of taxation, at the time of our nations founding. Conflating the modern, with the original isn't a valid argument against the original intent.

But we are in the modern and not the original days, so any reasoning that made sense then no longer does.

So, is it just the land ownership or do you want to restrict it to white males also, like the original intent?

Was talking about this with my wife at the grocery store and she wondered if you considered people who still owed a bank money on their property to the bank land owners or does the bank own it till it is all paid for?

The bank would in fact still be the owner until the transfer of the deed. Just like a couch from Rent-A-Center isn’t yours till the last payment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I do not see a connection to owning land and voting. What is so special about owning land?

It is something you should look into. Owning land, and only land owners being able to vote does a number of things. One being that it keeps people who do not pay taxes into the coffers of the government, from decisions of when, and how taxes should be applied. If only land owners were voting... They would literally be voting on taxing themselves; and as such would be hesitant to increase taxes unless there was a very good reason to do so. (Keep in mind there was no income tax back then, nor should there be now. That wasn't part of the design.)
Secondly It keeps non contributors from making legal determinations as to how the contributors money is spent. Parasites will always vote to promote their own interests at the cost of the host.
But there are many more reasons...

So many false assumptions in one post, it is very impressive you could squeeze them all in.

People that do not own land still pay taxes into the coffers, so you first point is false.

People who do not own land still contribute and owning land is not a sign of contribution.

Not as false as you would like. In order to understand this... You would have to understand the practice of taxation, at the time of our nations founding. Conflating the modern, with the original isn't a valid argument against the original intent.

But we are in the modern and not the original days, so any reasoning that made sense then no longer does.

So, is it just the land ownership or do you want to restrict it to white males also, like the original intent?

Was talking about this with my wife at the grocery store and she wondered if you considered people who still owed a bank money on their property to the bank land owners or does the bank own it till it is all paid for?

Reason always makes sense. Otherwise it wouldn’t be reasonable.

Let's try this again...what made sense in 1750 does not automatically make sense in 2018.

So, is it just the land ownership or do you want to restrict it to white males also, like the original intent?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I do not see a connection to owning land and voting. What is so special about owning land?

It is something you should look into. Owning land, and only land owners being able to vote does a number of things. One being that it keeps people who do not pay taxes into the coffers of the government, from decisions of when, and how taxes should be applied. If only land owners were voting... They would literally be voting on taxing themselves; and as such would be hesitant to increase taxes unless there was a very good reason to do so. (Keep in mind there was no income tax back then, nor should there be now. That wasn't part of the design.)
Secondly It keeps non contributors from making legal determinations as to how the contributors money is spent. Parasites will always vote to promote their own interests at the cost of the host.
But there are many more reasons...

So many false assumptions in one post, it is very impressive you could squeeze them all in.

People that do not own land still pay taxes into the coffers, so you first point is false.

People who do not own land still contribute and owning land is not a sign of contribution.

Not as false as you would like. In order to understand this... You would have to understand the practice of taxation, at the time of our nations founding. Conflating the modern, with the original isn't a valid argument against the original intent.

But we are in the modern and not the original days, so any reasoning that made sense then no longer does.

So, is it just the land ownership or do you want to restrict it to white males also, like the original intent?

Was talking about this with my wife at the grocery store and she wondered if you considered people who still owed a bank money on their property to the bank land owners or does the bank own it till it is all paid for?

The bank would in fact still be the owner until the transfer of the deed. Just like a couch from Rent-A-Center isn’t yours till the last payment.

So, anybody with a mortgage would be denied the right to vote.

 

[Vastator]

I'd disagree with this assesment. This issue in particular goes much deeper than the superficiality of "partisanship". This a much deeper philosophical issue that centers around jurisprudence, and the philosophies regarding crime, and punishment. What it means to be a "free man"; and just what constitutes "cruel, and unusual punishment".

Philosophically, a "free man" asks no one what he can or cannot do. It is only if a person chooses to burden themselves with an obligation to society, that they willingly choose to surrender their freedom.

Do they? If that were true... They could leave that land; and find new land where they could determine "freedom" to their own liking. Even divorcing ones self from society is nearly, if not outright illegal in all known lands.
To demonstrate... Try home birthing ones children without informing the local, and greater bodies of govenance...

 

[Vastator]

It is something you should look into. Owning land, and only land owners being able to vote does a number of things. One being that it keeps people who do not pay taxes into the coffers of the government, from decisions of when, and how taxes should be applied. If only land owners were voting... They would literally be voting on taxing themselves; and as such would be hesitant to increase taxes unless there was a very good reason to do so. (Keep in mind there was no income tax back then, nor should there be now. That wasn't part of the design.)
Secondly It keeps non contributors from making legal determinations as to how the contributors money is spent. Parasites will always vote to promote their own interests at the cost of the host.
But there are many more reasons...

So many false assumptions in one post, it is very impressive you could squeeze them all in.

People that do not own land still pay taxes into the coffers, so you first point is false.

People who do not own land still contribute and owning land is not a sign of contribution.

Not as false as you would like. In order to understand this... You would have to understand the practice of taxation, at the time of our nations founding. Conflating the modern, with the original isn't a valid argument against the original intent.

But we are in the modern and not the original days, so any reasoning that made sense then no longer does.

So, is it just the land ownership or do you want to restrict it to white males also, like the original intent?

Was talking about this with my wife at the grocery store and she wondered if you considered people who still owed a bank money on their property to the bank land owners or does the bank own it till it is all paid for?

The bank would in fact still be the owner until the transfer of the deed. Just like a couch from Rent-A-Center isn’t yours till the last payment.

So, anybody with a mortgage would be denied the right to vote.

No. I know people who own land outright. And also hold a mortgage on other properties.

 

[Vastator]

It is something you should look into. Owning land, and only land owners being able to vote does a number of things. One being that it keeps people who do not pay taxes into the coffers of the government, from decisions of when, and how taxes should be applied. If only land owners were voting... They would literally be voting on taxing themselves; and as such would be hesitant to increase taxes unless there was a very good reason to do so. (Keep in mind there was no income tax back then, nor should there be now. That wasn't part of the design.)
Secondly It keeps non contributors from making legal determinations as to how the contributors money is spent. Parasites will always vote to promote their own interests at the cost of the host.
But there are many more reasons...

So many false assumptions in one post, it is very impressive you could squeeze them all in.

People that do not own land still pay taxes into the coffers, so you first point is false.

People who do not own land still contribute and owning land is not a sign of contribution.

Not as false as you would like. In order to understand this... You would have to understand the practice of taxation, at the time of our nations founding. Conflating the modern, with the original isn't a valid argument against the original intent.

But we are in the modern and not the original days, so any reasoning that made sense then no longer does.

So, is it just the land ownership or do you want to restrict it to white males also, like the original intent?

Was talking about this with my wife at the grocery store and she wondered if you considered people who still owed a bank money on their property to the bank land owners or does the bank own it till it is all paid for?

Reason always makes sense. Otherwise it wouldn’t be reasonable.

Let's try this again...what made sense in 1750 does not automatically make sense in 2018.

So, is it just the land ownership or do you want to restrict it to white males also, like the original intent?

Yes.