Reason #1 Why I'm a Conservative

[sam i am]

Original Constitutionalist.

Bring back you can only vote if you are a landowner. Those who have a vested interest in this country should be the only ones allowed to have a say in how it's run.

I don't care, and most of the Founding Fathers probably wouldn't either if they were alive today, if you are a woman, black, jewish, whatever. Just own land before you can vote.

BTW, this would take away my right to vote, as I am currently a renter and not an owner.

Think about what you truly VALUE in life : what you have earned through your work or what has been given to you. Then, write your opinion...

Let the Dice Fly! Veni Vidi Vici!

[D_Raay]

Original Constitutionalist.

Bring back you can only vote if you are a landowner. Those who have a vested interest in this country should be the only ones allowed to have a say in how it's run.

I don't care, and most of the Founding Fathers probably wouldn't either if they were alive today, if you are a woman, black, jewish, whatever. Just own land before you can vote.

BTW, this would take away my right to vote, as I am currently a renter and not an owner.

Think about what you truly VALUE in life : what you have earned through your work or what has been given to you. Then, write your opinion...

Let the Dice Fly! Veni Vidi Vici!

Are you serious? I hope not...

aut vincere aut mori?

divide et impera perhaps?

honor virutis preamium I think applies in a democracy more than your Oligarchic ideology.

[sam i am]

fuck that!

"We the People!" not "We who Own and Who Don't...haha!"

illegitimus non carborundum

Interesting. I quote the original, actual, enacted law of the Constitution and you quote the preamble, which is not law.

Repeal the Amendment which gave the vote to non-landowners!

[sam i am]

Are you serious? I hope not...

aut vincere aut mori?

divide et impera perhaps?

honor virutis preamium I think applies in a democracy more than your Oligarchic ideology.

Where's the oligarchy? We don't live in a democracy, we live in a Republic.

[cosmo105]

i don't understand why so many conservatives defend the rich so much. don't they get it? YOU WILL NEVER BE RICH! these people are profiting off your misery!

[yeahwho]

i don't understand why so many conservatives defend the rich so much. don't they get it? YOU WILL NEVER BE RICH! these people are profiting off your misery!

I've heard about these type of deals, your talking about one of those profit scams. Count me IN!

It's all colored in Red, White and Blue and they have ribbons and different colored days, this is going to be great! Let me sign up and show my desire to be rich just like the Big Boys!

[infidel]

Along with owning land the number of votes you get to place should be determined by how many slaves you own.
Minimum wagers count as slaves.

[Qdrop]

oh sam....

are you drunk?


you sound like a drunken, half asleep uncle....on the couch after a big thanksgiving dinner....


"no voting if you don't own land! *burp*....any more turkey?...."

[QueenAdrock]

I told my kitten (http://www.rosemarybutler.com/0catsmiles.jpg) today what gmsisko said. She found it ridiculous, as well.

[franscar]

BTW, this would take away my right to vote, as I am currently a renter and not an owner.

You support a system whereby you would have absolutely no input into the decision making process?

Hmmm.

[sam i am]

You support a system whereby you would have absolutely no input into the decision making process?

Hmmm.

My point was, if you have a vested interest in society (ie homeownership), you have a vested interest in the future of the country. Otherwise, you can vote yourself privileges and money that you didn't earn.....that's called communism.

[sam i am]

This is true. You make great points. Under those rules I would not get to vote as of now, but they are good ideas. (In law enforcement if you are a curtesy officer, you can get free rent. That makes me want to rent)

gmsisko1.....please stop agreeing with me. All you do is undermine the validity of my points.

[sam i am]

oh sam....

are you drunk?


you sound like a drunken, half asleep uncle....on the couch after a big thanksgiving dinner....


"no voting if you don't own land! *burp*....any more turkey?...."

There's a bit more clarification above. My point overall was to start a discussion of this salient point. It's one of my primary goals in life to see this happen....I'll go into some of the ramifications and rationale behind my support for this idea if you'd like...

[franscar]

My point was, if you have a vested interest in society (ie homeownership), you have a vested interest in the future of the country. Otherwise, you can vote yourself privileges and money that you didn't earn.....that's called communism.

And my question remains the same, because you haven't actually answered it.

[sam i am]

You support a system whereby you would have absolutely no input into the decision making process?

Hmmm.

I don't need a system whereby I would have absolutely no input into the decision making process. Just because I couldn't vote doesn't mean my voice wouldn't be heard. Money talks. Protests talk. Freedom of speech (newspapers, radio, TV, internet) all talk. There are means and ways to participate, which many people do, without actually voting.

Have you seen the participation rates in national elections over the years? Then look at state, county, & local elections. Some have problems getting 10% of REGISTERED voters to vote. Making it easier to vote has only devalued each person's vote.

Make it harder and people will VALUE it. I'd sure as heck own land ASAP if my idea came to pass.

Does that answer your query?

[franscar]

I don't need a system whereby I would have absolutely no input into the decision making process. Just because I couldn't vote doesn't mean my voice wouldn't be heard. Money talks. Protests talk. Freedom of speech (newspapers, radio, TV, internet) all talk. There are means and ways to participate, which many people do, without actually voting.

Have you seen the participation rates in national elections over the years? Then look at state, county, & local elections. Some have problems getting 10% of REGISTERED voters to vote. Making it easier to vote has only devalued each person's vote.

Make it harder and people will VALUE it. I'd sure as heck own land ASAP if my idea came to pass.

Does that answer your query?

Not really. Lets face it, if you couldn't vote the government out of office, why would they actually give a shit what you were protesting about?

[sam i am]

Not really. Lets face it, if you couldn't vote the government out of office, why would they actually give a shit what you were protesting about?

2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms and overthrow a tyrannical government.

[franscar]

2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms and overthrow a tyrannical government.

Isn't it slightly less messy to just vote the crap ones out of office instead of having them killed? Really?

[Bob]

My point was, if you have a vested interest in society (ie homeownership), you have a vested interest in the future of the country. Otherwise, you can vote yourself privileges and money that you didn't earn.....that's called communism.

you feel that owning land is a prerequisite for having a vested interest in society? people who don't own land have no interest?

[SobaViolence]

2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms and overthrow a tyrannical government.


america doesn't have the balls. nor the brains.

[sam i am]

america doesn't have the balls. nor the brains.

Best point yet. But, I'll keep working on it....

[sam i am]

Isn't it slightly less messy to just vote the crap ones out of office instead of having them killed? Really?

Nah. Worked with the British. Taxation without representation and all that, old chap.

[franscar]

Nah. Worked with the British. Taxation without representation and all that, old chap.

Completely different scenario, over two hundred years ago. You might want to rethink that one.

And maybe my knowledge is fuzzy, but didn't a fair number of people get killed over the whole thing?

[Qdrop]

sam,
your senario serves the affluent only.

many many americans do not own land, because they cannot afford it for a myriad of reasons. this does not make them unworthy to participate in gov't elections.
they are still citizens....contributing citizens.


what i really don't understand is why you chose land ownership as your seemingly arbitrary stipulation on voters rights.

you seem to suggest that this would prompt people to buy land.

so?

why is that so important to you?

[Bob]

what i really don't understand is why you chose land ownership as your seemingly arbitrary stipulation on voters rights.


that's chiefly what i'm wondering, too. why land?

[bb_bboy]

If you own more land, do you get more votes? It seems fair that those who own more land have more of a vested interest. :confused:

[sam i am]

sam,
your senario serves the affluent only.

many many americans do not own land, because they cannot afford it for a myriad of reasons. this does not make them unworthy to participate in gov't elections.
they are still citizens....contributing citizens.


what i really don't understand is why you chose land ownership as your seemingly arbitrary stipulation on voters rights.

you seem to suggest that this would prompt people to buy land.

so?

why is that so important to you?

This would not be for the affluent only. How about giving everyone 40 acres and a mule of federally owned land? Divvy up the West for those who don't own land already. Preserve national parks and give every citizen a share now. Allow land to be handed down from generation to generation. Take back the country from federal ownership.

When you own land (or a home), you naturally take better care of it because your ass is on the line. You make the payments to the bank, but you also get all the interest deduction. You CARE about it more than rented items.

When you have a VESTED interest, and it comes out of your hard earned money, you protect it and treasure it more. You follow decisions that are being made that affect you. When you are disaffected or don't own property, you TEND to not be as interested in what happens to the society around you....

[sam i am]

I will agree wth who I want, when I want. Priciateya

crap. :mad:

[sam i am]

If you own more land, do you get more votes? It seems fair that those who own more land have more of a vested interest. :confused:

Nope. Go back to the original framing of the Constituion on this one. Everyone who owns get a vote. Those who don't, don't.

[catatonic]

(a) Isn't it true that if you live in a populated area it's more difficult to own land and
(a2)Does that really give you the slave status your voting ability indicates you have
(b) Why do the landowners care about what happens to the rest of us? They no longer care about change because they already own land.
(c) Do nonlandowners really know less about how things work? People who live in apartments in New York are pretty smart.
(d) nonlandowners have been allowed to vote for a long time.
(e) landowners didn't necessarily get there through righteous achievements

[sam i am]

You're just as bad as sisko. Maybe worse.

Should we get rid of paying taxes then? I mean, if I'm paying taxes, I'd like to have a say about where it goes and those running for office.

Perfect. Get rid of the income tax as well. Thank you for anticipating my point.

BTW, I am offended that you compare me to sisko. He would NEVER have come up with such a Machiavellian scheme.... :)

[EN[i]GMA]

You're just as bad as sisko. Maybe worse.

Should we get rid of paying taxes then? I mean, if I'm paying taxes, I'd like to have a say about where it goes and those running for office.

Getting rid of taxes isn't a bad idea.

[sam i am]

GMA']Getting rid of taxes isn't a bad idea.

Amen, brother. :D

[sam i am]

(a) Isn't it true that if you live in a populated area it's more difficult to own land and
(a2)Does that really give you the slave status your voting ability indicates you have
(b) Why do the landowners care about what happens to the rest of us? They no longer care about change because they already own land.
(c) Do nonlandowners really know less about how things work? People who live in apartments in New York are pretty smart.
(d) nonlandowners have been allowed to vote for a long time.
(e) landowners didn't necessarily get there through righteous achievements

Point a) Divvy up the West as I stated before. Plenty of land to go around for all.

Point a2) The slave thing was morally and economically wrong. Not a valid argument anymore.

Point b) landowners do care because they want to maintain and increase their property values. Who says they don't care about change? Redirect the federal government to international and commercial affairs where they belong. Let the states, counties, and cities take up the slack so there is far more ACCOUNTABILITY.

Point c) nonlandowners are still vitally important as labor and wealth-generators. They want to be landowners so they can vote.

Point d) just because nonlandowners have been allowed to vote for a long time doesn't make it right. Slavery was allowed for a long time and that doesn't make it right, either.

Point e) landowners get there through regulated work environments and EARN it. Everyone has the same opportunity to own land because there is so much more available due to the divvying up of federal lands discussed above.

Hope that helps....

[QueenAdrock]

I agree. Taxes do more good than harm.

I'm making only about $8,000 a year because I work part-time and go to school. I'm paying off student loans and a car loan, and I'd STILL rather see my hard-earned money go to pay for things society needs (police, roads, etc. etc.), than selfishly say I want it to pay off my loans.

I find it amazing that oftentimes the people who make the least amount of money are the ones who are most willing to give it up for the better of the nation. The millionaires who want to have platinum-lined sinks instead of gold-plated sinks are the ones who stubbornly argue that they <3 their money and the government should keep their paws off it. :rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

MY point is, the rich can afford it. I can't afford 20% of my paycheck to go to taxes, but I don't complain. I still manage to make ends meet.

The rich can afford to pay taxes the most. It's ridiculous that they complain that the government takes money from them. They'll still have enough money to buy everything and anything they ever wanted.

By all means, I should be the one to complain. But I realize that they're needed, so I don't. It boils my blood to hear rich-whiteys say "No more taxes" when they've got two fucking yaughts and a Hummer crammed into their 4-car garage. I mean, they desperately need those taxes to pay for a bigger house, with a 6-car garage, right?

Please. :rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

(I believe we need smaller government, but the need for government exists)

And you honestly believe that Bush wants to have as little government regulation over things as possible?

[yeahwho]

only landowners can vote

This is a bad idea anyway you slice it, it is 2005, there are 295,734,134 US citizens as of July. Currently (July 2005) the birthrate is 14.4 births/1000 people vs. 8.25 deaths/1000.

In an effort to live as if it the year were 1776 or there abouts, your solution is to have the haves.....decide for the have-nots. Didn't we already give to the rich?

Bring back you can only vote if you are a landowner. Those who have a vested interest in this country should be the only ones allowed to have a say in how it's run.

They also can be the ones to fight the wars. Make it illegal for non-land owners to be in the US Military. That sounds fair.

[Documad]

(In law enforcement if you are a curtesy officer, you can get free rent. That makes me want to rent)
What is a curtesy officer? Is it someone who does security for the apartment complex in exchange for rent?

[D_Raay]

That is un fair of you to say. Rich people pay more money (tax money) in dollar amount and percentage than anyone else. Who provides most of the jobs? (The Rich People)

Yes, we need taxes. We need a government (I believe we need smaller government, but the need for government exists)

Lets see, Ted Turner, Shaq Oniel, Bill Gates, are examples of people who make a lot of money, provide a lot of jobs, pay a lot of taxes, and still give a lot of money to people in need.
You must be kidding me. You can't even spell O'Neal but you want to support him?

This thread must end. How the fuck are we supposed to feel sorry for wealthy people you brainless twit.

Yeah, I am back, he-who-shits-whilst-he-walks, please stay out of intelligent (albeit playfully half kidding on sam's part) conversations.

Thanks Queenie you're right of course, when I have nothing left to add I will depart and no sooner.

[D_Raay]

This is a bad idea anyway you slice it, it is 2005, there are 295,734,134 US citizens as of July. Currently (July 2005) the birthrate is 14.4 births/1000 people vs. 8.25 deaths/1000.

In an effort to live as if it the year were 1776 or there abouts, your solution is to have the haves.....decide for the have-nots. Didn't we already give to the rich?



They also can be the ones to fight the wars. Make it illegal for non-land owners to be in the US Military. That sounds fair.
Stunningly ironic... The "haves" are already deciding for the "have nots", and we ARE fighting their wars.

You already have your wish sam and twould seem your as in the dark as they keep the rest of us.

[ChrisLove]

It seems to me that the landowner voting idea is aimed at being a policy to achieve economic growth, its like its saying that all that matters is wealth creation and if your not involved in that wealth creation then you are not part of our society....


But why should a high GDP be the utopian goal of government policy? Why shouldnt people be allowed to pursue non-economic goals and dreams? What if your happiness is defined by the desire to have (for example ) a large family, an experiance of different places/cultures around the world or a fantastic education all of which (potentially) require individuals to invest their limited resources in areas other than property? Should such individuals be demoted to second class citizens?

I think the Declaration of Independance says something about it being mans right to pursue life (or maybe it was love cant be bothered to look it up), liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I think in my view, the pursuit of happiness, not just for oneself or ones nation but for all mankind, is a far more noble and important goal than the pursuit of economic growth.

Sometimes I think that that is one of the central differences between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' (I hate those terms btw).

[zorra_chiflada]

Otherwise, you can vote yourself privileges and money that you didn't earn.....that's called communism.

oh you're an expert on communism now are you? that's great.

(p.s. i actually live with an expert on communism and he says you have no idea what you're talking about)

[Ali]

And my question remains the same, because you haven't actually answered it.You're in for a looooooong wait, mate.

[Qdrop]

This would not be for the affluent only. How about giving everyone 40 acres and a mule of federally owned land? sounds like socialism to me. just give without earning?

Divvy up the West for those who don't own land already. the majority of western land is unusable and desolate.
the fuck am i gonna do with 40 acres of desert?

Preserve national parks and give every citizen a share now. yeah, the average joe knows how to take care of a national park's ecological health. yeah.


When you own land (or a home), you naturally take better care of it because your ass is on the line. You make the payments to the bank, but you also get all the interest deduction. You CARE about it more than rented items. sure, so buy land.... BUY it. it doesn't just get given to you. earn it.
you also take better care of and appreciate things you EARN rather then just recieve.

When you have a VESTED interest, and it comes out of your hard earned money, you protect it and treasure it more. You follow decisions that are being made that affect you. When you are disaffected or don't own property, you TEND to not be as interested in what happens to the society around you....
so you want to use the right to vote as cohersion for people to buy land. because if they own land, they will be better citizens.

wow, quite the stretch.

[sam i am]

You're getting just as bad as him at a rapid rate.

Having no taxes would seem like a nice idea, but we would have less programs, crappy roads and so on. They are needed...especially now.

I'm talking federal taxes, not state, county, local, etc. Let the accountability for where our taxes are spent be at a more local level. If politicians have to face you, the voter, or the donors to his or her opponents' campaigns, they are FAR more likely to LISTEN, PAY ATTENTION, and DO what you want rather than have their choices dictated by a larger national party.

Less FEDERAL programs would not be bad, and states and local governments would pick up the slack. The overall point, however, is to minimize the intrusiveness of those who are not accountable locally, especially the federal bureaucracy.

Again, please refrain from comparing me sisko : I have reasonaed, well thought out ideas and am willing to listen to constructive criticism and input, which sisko obviously is not.

[sam i am]

I agree. Taxes do more good than harm.

I find it amazing that oftentimes the people who make the least amount of money are the ones who are most willing to give it up for the better of the nation. The millionaires who want to have platinum-lined sinks instead of gold-plated sinks are the ones who stubbornly argue that they <3 their money and the government should keep their paws off it. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the feedback, Queen. You are always pretty reasonable and I appreciate your input to the debate over this IDEA.

The only minor correction I would make to your logic is that millionaires earned the money and they should spend it however they like. They should NOT be TOLD how they HAVE to spend it.

On another thread, I argued the point that those who mine that platinum or gold all have JOBS that are suported by that millionaire who bought the gold or platinum plated sinks. The machines to mine the ores are all operated by people with JOBS. The manufacturers of the machines and all of their suppliers have JOBS. Those who wash and maintain those millionaires' homes have JOBS. Where did all these jobs come from? From the the demand for those goods and services. So, the millionaires support WAY more than just themselves. They support hundreds, sometimes thousands, of others who provide the goods and services that are demanded by those millionaires.

Love that capitalism!

[sam i am]

This is a bad idea anyway you slice it, it is 2005, there are 295,734,134 US citizens as of July. Currently (July 2005) the birthrate is 14.4 births/1000 people vs. 8.25 deaths/1000.

In an effort to live as if it the year were 1776 or there abouts, your solution is to have the haves.....decide for the have-nots. Didn't we already give to the rich?



They also can be the ones to fight the wars. Make it illegal for non-land owners to be in the US Military. That sounds fair.

Ok - good points. Now we're having a discussion.

Do you know how many of those citizens are under 18?

My effort is not to live in 1776. My effort is to live in 2005 and carve out much of the federal government to give it back to more accountable local and state control. 10th amendment. It's a plausible program with proper implementation.

As to your idea that only the landowners can fight wars - why? We have an ALL-VOLUNTEER military. Why not allow anyone who wants to join? With all of the savings the federal government would have from not having to administer such a large bureaucracy and land holdings throughtout a majority of the western states, it would have the time, energy, discipline, and focus to concentrate on its CONSTITUTIONALLY-MANDATED obligation to provide for the defense of the US.

Finally, I don't want the haves to decide for the have-nots. As I clearly stated earlier, those without the vote would strive to get it (and more than 90%, by my calculation could have it through the grant of those federal lands I described earlier) or would support the political process through financial contributions. Plus, this is only on a FEDERAL level. States would retain the right to decide for themselves who could vote in state, county, and local elections. Therefore, your whole counter-argument fails to procure the necessary outcome you anticipated.

[sam i am]

Stunningly ironic... The "haves" are already deciding for the "have nots", and we ARE fighting their wars.

You already have your wish sam and twould seem your as in the dark as they keep the rest of us.

No I'm not. You're just one of the very few who catches on more quickly.

Circuses for the masses.

[sam i am]

It seems to me that the landowner voting idea is aimed at being a policy to achieve economic growth, its like its saying that all that matters is wealth creation and if your not involved in that wealth creation then you are not part of our society....


But why should a high GDP be the utopian goal of government policy? Why shouldnt people be allowed to pursue non-economic goals and dreams? What if your happiness is defined by the desire to have (for example ) a large family, an experiance of different places/cultures around the world or a fantastic education all of which (potentially) require individuals to invest their limited resources in areas other than property? Should such individuals be demoted to second class citizens?

I think the Declaration of Independance says something about it being mans right to pursue life (or maybe it was love cant be bothered to look it up), liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I think in my view, the pursuit of happiness, not just for oneself or ones nation but for all mankind, is a far more noble and important goal than the pursuit of economic growth.

Sometimes I think that that is one of the central differences between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' (I hate those terms btw).

Good post. Glad to see ya.

It's not just about economics, it's also about accountability and freedom to pursue those goals you so want. Imagine if you had 20-40% more of your earned money to spend on what you want. Wouldn't that make a huge difference in how you could choose to live your life?

[sam i am]

oh you're an expert on communism now are you? that's great.

(p.s. i actually live with an expert on communism and he says you have no idea what you're talking about)

Really. Why don't you explain it to me then. Is it better? :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

Ok - good points. Now we're having a discussion.

Do you know how many of those citizens are under 18?

My effort is not to live in 1776. My effort is to live in 2005 and carve out much of the federal government to give it back to more accountable local and state control. 10th amendment. It's a plausible program with proper implementation.

As to your idea that only the landowners can fight wars - why? We have an ALL-VOLUNTEER military. Why not allow anyone who wants to join? With all of the savings the federal government would have from not having to administer such a large bureaucracy and land holdings throughtout a majority of the western states, it would have the time, energy, discipline, and focus to concentrate on its CONSTITUTIONALLY-MANDATED obligation to provide for the defense of the US.

Finally, I don't want the haves to decide for the have-nots. As I clearly stated earlier, those without the vote would strive to get it (and more than 90%, by my calculation could have it through the grant of those federal lands I described earlier) or would support the political process through financial contributions. Plus, this is only on a FEDERAL level. States would retain the right to decide for themselves who could vote in state, county, and local elections. Therefore, your whole counter-argument fails to procure the necessary outcome you anticipated.

You've got to be kidding me. I'm not sure which idea is worse, people without enough money donating money to people they cannot vote for, or people sending their kids to wars they can't make decisions on......all this for a country they have no vested interest in according to the new "Electorate Laws".

I'm not procuring an outcome, WTF is wrong with you? Do you think it's a good idea in the year 2005 to divvy up all the crapland and shit real estate and have people (many millions did want to become citizens, perhaps this will slow the flow of immigrants, Sorry, Full) put claims on it? This is your solution for "Getting the Vote Out?"

[sam i am]

You've got to be kidding me. I'm not sure which idea is worse, people without enough money donating money to people they cannot vote for, or people sending their kids to wars they can't make decisions on......all this for a country they have no vested interest in according to the new "Electorate Laws".

I'm not procuring an outcome, WTF is wrong with you? Do you think it's a good idea in the year 2005 to divvy up all the crapland and shit real estate and have people (many millions did want to become citizens, perhaps this will slow the flow of immigrants, Sorry, Full) put claims on it? This is your solution for "Getting the Vote Out?"

Nothing is wrong with me. Just attempting to having a discussion with you.

If people owned "crapland," wouldn't they want to develop it? Or parcel it out to those who don't? Why not give EVERY SINGLE PERSON living in the US an acre or two of land they OWN and let them vote? Then, watch the economic freedom that takes place.

I'm not trying to "get the vote out." I'm trying to give people a STAKE in the country they live in so they CARE about it and find out, intelligently, all they can about elections BEFORE they vote, instead of being aimlessly led about by their leaders. An informed, VESTED electorate will be much better than what we have now. Who knows? Maybe even the Democrats or the Libertarians can elect a President and Congress they like.

Finally, you didn't acknowledge my addressing of your concerns about the disenfranchised on a federal level still being allowed to vote in state, county, and local elections. So...again your argument fails logic.

[franscar]

If people owned "crapland," wouldn't they want to develop it? Or parcel it out to those who don't? Why not give EVERY SINGLE PERSON living in the US an acre or two of land they OWN and let them vote? Then, watch the economic freedom that takes place.

This is an elaborate scheme to get poor people to live in the desert isn't it?

[sam i am]

This is an elaborate scheme to get poor people to live in the desert isn't it?

Maybe..... :rolleyes: :) ;)

[Qdrop]

hahahah!!
i knew it!

[yeahwho]

Nothing is wrong with me. Just attempting to having a discussion with you.

If people owned "crapland," wouldn't they want to develop it? Or parcel it out to those who don't? Why not give EVERY SINGLE PERSON living in the US an acre or two of land they OWN and let them vote? Then, watch the economic freedom that takes place.

I'm not trying to "get the vote out." I'm trying to give people a STAKE in the country they live in so they CARE about it and find out, intelligently, all they can about elections BEFORE they vote, instead of being aimlessly led about by their leaders. An informed, VESTED electorate will be much better than what we have now. Who knows? Maybe even the Democrats or the Libertarians can elect a President and Congress they like.

Finally, you didn't acknowledge my addressing of your concerns about the disenfranchised on a federal level still being allowed to vote in state, county, and local elections. So...again your argument fails logic.

Your giving people a vested stake in America by taking away their vote?

Your telling folks to turn their parcel of crapland into Las Vegas or Disneyland?

Who are the group of people behind this movement? Let me read one politician or convincing article on this idea.

What if the disenfranchised voted to abolish land ownership on a state, county and local level?

I know, I know....your going to come up with brilliant replies and tell me my argument is null...because you said so.

Have you ever noticed how little interest there is in your idea? Do you think it's because millions of citizens are stupid and uninformed about the validity of what you propose?

[STANKY808]

Is it your contention that land owners are better informed than the landless? Cause I know some pretty dim real estate owners and some very intelligent renters. In fact my experience is that land owners main concern has to do with keeping what's theirs and very little to do with anything else.

And as for your suggestion that the new land owners could do something with their land, and once they built whatever attraction/service on it, are you implying that those folks would continue to live on said land? Or once developed would they have to move off and become landless again?

[sam i am]

Your giving people a vested stake in America by taking away their vote?

Nope. By giving them land so they CAN vote. If they don't have land, they don't vote. Simple and easy.

Your telling folks to turn their parcel of crapland into Las Vegas or Disneyland?

Nope. I'm telling them to do what they want with it. All it does is give them a seat at the table.

Who are the group of people behind this movement? Let me read one politician or convincing article on this idea.

Me. As far as I know, I'm the one who thought it up. BUT, I'm working on a movement to make this happen. One by one, I will convince those who don't yet know this is a great idea that it is one and we WILL take back our country. I'm pretty smart. ;)

What if the disenfranchised voted to abolish land ownership on a state, county and local level?

Fine by me. This doesn't change the federal program I am proposing. Let each state decide what it wants to do.

Have you ever noticed how little interest there is in your idea? Do you think it's because millions of citizens are stupid and uninformed about the validity of what you propose?

There's more interest than you know. Do a google search on the 15th Amedndment - repeal. It's already in the works, I found out.

Also, as I stated, it is one of my missions to educate and enlighten regarding this issue. I may lose in the marketplace of ideas, but at least I'm doing what I can to make it happen.

[sam i am]

Is it your contention that land owners are better informed than the landless? Cause I know some pretty dim real estate owners and some very intelligent renters. In fact my experience is that land owners main concern has to do with keeping what's theirs and very little to do with anything else.

And as for your suggestion that the new land owners could do something with their land, and once they built whatever attraction/service on it, are you implying that those folks would continue to live on said land? Or once developed would they have to move off and become landless again?

Nope. They could buy, sell, and trade as they please. They would just know that if they sold all of it, they would lose the right to vote.

This is strictly a voting accountability proposal.

[sam i am]

hahahah!!
i knew it!

Qdrop - you're WAY too smart for me... ;)

Really, I like this idea. It is something I've thought about for years. At least it's an IDEA, unlike all of the drivel we all usually debate here.

There's an old quote about great men and women debate ideas while not so great men and women debate issue or some such thing. Anyhow, my whole goal is to raise the level of dialogue and get people thinking about new ideas, concepts, and proposals instead of the diatribes that often pass for debate on many of these threads.

Hope I'm succeeding somewhat. :confused:

[STANKY808]

Are landowners better informed than the landless?

[yeahwho]

Now I understand why documad was so put off by talking to you, this idea of "only landowners can vote in Federal elections" is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Don't you have a cause that makes sense? :confused:

It isn't going to happen, not today, not tomorrow, not in your lifetime, not ever. Do you have some other contribution to this country other than rewarding landowners exclusive rights to federal elections?

I would be much more interested in eliminating the penny or free beer or anything other than dividing society more.

[Schmeltz]

So the number one reason you're a conservative is because you believe in repealing people's civil rights?

I guess that's probably the number one reason I'm not a conservative and never will be.

[zorra_chiflada]

Really. Why don't you explain it to me then. Is it better? :rolleyes:

why don't you read the communist manifesto, smart guy.

[Ali]

Hey, aren't Native American the only 'real' land owners in the US?

I mean, the current 'owners' never actually paid the 'original' land owners in the first place... they just took it, therefore they don't actually own the land, even if they did buy it from somebody else, because the land wasn't theirs to sell in the first place.

Yes, silly argument - almost as silly as saying that the landless don't have a vested interest in the future of the country in which they work and live.

Anybody who cares enough to register to vote and then go and vote, deserves the right to vote, end of story.

[sam i am]

Hey, aren't Native American the only 'real' land owners in the US?

I mean, the current 'owners' never actually paid the 'original' land owners in the first place... they just took it, therefore they don't actually own the land, even if they did buy it from somebody else, because the land wasn't theirs to sell in the first place.

Yes, silly argument - almost as silly as saying that the landless don't have a vested interest in the future of the country in which they work and live.

Anybody who cares enough to register to vote and then go and vote, deserves the right to vote, end of story.

As usual, Ali said it all. :rolleyes:

End of thread.

[brewstercraven]

wots wrong with ppl voting??

the only reason i can think of to deny someone the right to vote is that you cant be bothered to count the votes. which is a fair point reali.... :D

also im from england where theres about 60million ppl in an area it think is smaller than quite a few of your states so your idea would only work in a place which is generally massive. also this means that there is a limited amount of votes so the rich would buy up all the land as they have vested interests with the goverment. thus hiking up all land prices to an insane amount.

good luck getting a house or even renting!!!!

not reali thought this thru have ya?..... ;)

not bad for me 1st post eh?

[sam i am]

Now I understand why documad was so put off by talking to you, this idea of "only landowners can vote in Federal elections" is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Don't you have a cause that makes sense? :confused:

It isn't going to happen, not today, not tomorrow, not in your lifetime, not ever. Do you have some other contribution to this country other than rewarding landowners exclusive rights to federal elections?

I would be much more interested in eliminating the penny or free beer or anything other than dividing society more.

Just because you state something is dumb or doesn't make sense doesn't make it so.

Maybe you haven't thought it through all the way... :confused:

Also, just because you state it will never happen doesn't mean it won't. I'm sure many like-minded people with your thought processes thought the same thing about the earth being flat and slavery and wars will end. Sorry you are not advanced enough to follow complex, ertswhile debatable points that DO have meaning. :(

[sam i am]

wots wrong with ppl voting??

Most are uninformed on the positions and policies they are voting on. Even with nearly universal education, a vast majority of voters are ignorant of the science, history, and other mitigating factors behind the issues of the day and the politicians they vote on.

So, you have to have a certain level of intelligence to manage land, the theory goes, so you will MORE LIKELY be informed and CARE about what the outcomes are.

See.....I HAVE thought it through, despite your attempts to belittle the idea.

[franscar]

Most are uninformed on the positions and policies they are voting on. Even with nearly universal education, a vast majority of voters are ignorant of the science, history, and other mitigating factors behind the issues of the day and the politicians they vote on.

So, you have to have a certain level of intelligence to manage land, the theory goes, so you will MORE LIKELY be informed and CARE about what the outcomes are.

See.....I HAVE thought it through, despite your attempts to belittle the idea.

But that's a massive leap, and one that doesn't make any sense. There is no link that I can see between people owning land and having a higher degree of interest and knowledge with regards to political decisions. I see you fancy yourself as someone who knows what they are talking about, are you saying that, as a non-landowner, that those who DO own land know more than you?

And also, your idea of parcelling out land to those without any, doesn't that just completely defeat the purpose of barring non-landowners from voting? Seeing as everyone would then own land, wouldn't it be exactly the same situation as exists now?

[brewstercraven]

Most are uninformed on the positions and policies they are voting on. Even with nearly universal education, a vast majority of voters are ignorant of the science, history, and other mitigating factors behind the issues of the day and the politicians they vote on.

So, you have to have a certain level of intelligence to manage land, the theory goes, so you will MORE LIKELY be informed and CARE about what the outcomes are.

See.....I HAVE thought it through, despite your attempts to belittle the idea.


oh ur always right then, anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.......

convincing.......;)

[sam i am]

And also, your idea of parcelling out land to those without any, doesn't that just completely defeat the purpose of barring non-landowners from voting? Seeing as everyone would then own land, wouldn't it be exactly the same situation as exists now?

Not necessarily. Start everyone out as equal as possible - then, as time goes on, some will sell away their right to vote. This is as fundamental a right as any others in our Constitution.

The equality at the beginning ensures buy in to the idea.

[STANKY808]

The equality at the beginning ensures buy in to the idea.

So everyone will begin with the same amount and quality of land?
How do you propose to accomplish this?

And those who are current land owners will retain their land?

[brewstercraven]

why do you want to move back into the feudal system?

[Documad]

oh ur always right then, anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.......

convincing.......;)
Yeah, he'll tell you you're great one day and then say you can't read English the next.

Someone needs to visit the bipolar thread.

[brewstercraven]

Yeah, he'll tell you you're great one day and then say you can't read English the next.

Someone needs to visit the bipolar thread.


heh heh ;)

[franscar]

Not necessarily. Start everyone out as equal as possible - then, as time goes on, some will sell away their right to vote. This is as fundamental a right as any others in our Constitution.

The equality at the beginning ensures buy in to the idea.

So who gets the best farming land? Who gets the financial district on Manhattan? Who gets the desert of Arizona?

[brewstercraven]

So who gets the best farming land? Who gets the financial district on Manhattan? Who gets the desert of Arizona?
y dont we jzt cut thru the bullshit and have sam i am as our world leader.....

he was probs gettin 2 that point anyway.......

[sam i am]

oh ur always right then, anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.......

convincing.......;)

If you believe this about yourself, it's not MY fault.

I NEVER said any of the above. If you read implications into what I actually SAY, then it's your own sense of low self-worth that is doing so, not me.

[sam i am]

Yeah, he'll tell you you're great one day and then say you can't read English the next.

Someone needs to visit the bipolar thread.

Show me ONE example where I said you can't read english, Documad.

Too bad you have a hard time understanding me, but I think it's far more deliberate that you misinterpret, distort, and attempt to belittingly dismiss me.

All it does is make me stronger. ;) :p

[sam i am]

why do you want to move back into the feudal system?

It's not feudalism. There are no serfs nor serfdom involved.

Do you even know what feudalism is?

There's no fealty or oaths involved in my idea. It's simply a voting and land transference system whereby we get ownership of the actual, tangible real estate in this country back to the individual, rather than having it be owned by a nameless, faceless federal government.

It's really a very simple, elegant, way, as I stated near the beginning of the thread, to address accountability.

[sam i am]

So everyone will begin with the same amount and quality of land?
How do you propose to accomplish this?

And those who are current land owners will retain their land?

Of course not. BUT, those without land now would start with the same VOTING rights as any other landowner. This would ensure a BEGINNING of equal rights to VOTE, not equal value of land owned.

This is a VOTING idea, as I have stated repetitiously, yet all of you seem to want to make it into some kind of Florida land scheme. It's not. It's simply a way to get the accountability back into our system to the common voter, rather than vested interests and the federal government.

Finally, sure. Current landowners would retain their land. There is FAR more than enough land in the US to go around.

Maybe thinking of it like ownership of stocks and bonds would make it more transparent for most of you. Billions of shares of stocks are traded every day, but no one ever sees ACTUAL paper stocks except for a very few. Landownership would be the same. Value would increase and decrease on an Exchange ver similar to commodities, stocks, bonds, etc.

Is it a bit more clear now?

[sam i am]

y dont we jzt cut thru the bullshit and have sam i am as our world leader.....

he was probs gettin 2 that point anyway.......

All I'm doing is advocating a point of view and IDEAS. Sorry you feel so challenged by that, brewstercravenly.

Why not come up with your own idead rather than just bashing mine and lamely attempting your sarcasm....it's implausible here to escape your lack of wit, but at least make it INTERESTING to talk with you and we'll have SUCH a better time.

Better yet, don't and we'll all enjoy our discussions without you. It may be better for you anyway, since you have so little to offer.

[sam i am]

So who gets the best farming land? Who gets the financial district on Manhattan? Who gets the desert of Arizona?

See above answer. I addressed this.

Good interrogatory, though. What other parts would you like me to address? I'm up for all comers at this point. :cool:

[franscar]

See above answer. I addressed this.

Good interrogatory, though. What other parts would you like me to address? I'm up for all comers at this point. :cool:

But the basic idea makes no sense, so it seems of little value.

[sam i am]

But the basic idea makes no sense, so it seems of little value.

franscar, first of all : respect. Thank you for engaging in dialogue and constructivity when it comes to these topics. You are interesting and make me think.

Now, I believe I have shown the ways and means to implement the idea I had. I showed the reasoning behind my idea. I'm working to make it happen in the US. What about it DOESN'T make sense?

[franscar]

franscar, first of all : respect. Thank you for engaging in dialogue and constructivity when it comes to these topics. You are interesting and make me think.

Now, I believe I have shown the ways and means to implement the idea I had. I showed the reasoning behind my idea. I'm working to make it happen in the US. What about it DOESN'T make sense?

I can't get around the idea that holding land will make people more interested in voting and participating through alternative means. I've read the explanations you've given, and I just don't get the logic behind it.

Having children, yes, I see how that could make people much more aware of the policies of the nation, and would make them want to become more educated about the decisions being made, but I don't see how the same sort of link could be made for land, when it holds no sort of emotional attachment.

[sam i am]

I can't get around the idea that holding land will make people more interested in voting and participating through alternative means. I've read the explanations you've given, and I just don't get the logic behind it.

Having children, yes, I see how that could make people much more aware of the policies of the nation, and would make them want to become more educated about the decisions being made, but I don't see how the same sort of link could be made for land, when it holds no sort of emotional attachment.

Have you ever owned land? A house? A nice car? Some THING you found valuable? Now, how did you care for that thing/object? Did you find the same value in it that you did in things/objects that have been given to you in life?

That's the basis for the whole argument in a nutshell.

Children are another good argument, but you can't biologically force people to have children. So, it is not on the same level of practical implementation.

Good response, however.

[franscar]

Have you ever owned land? A house? A nice car? Some THING you found valuable? Now, how did you care for that thing/object? Did you find the same value in it that you did in things/objects that have been given to you in life?

That's the basis for the whole argument in a nutshell.

Children are another good argument, but you can't biologically force people to have children. So, it is not on the same level of practical implementation.

Good response, however.

Well yes, I own my own car. It's shit hot as well. Really. But purchasing it was a decision I took of my own free will, it wasn't given to me. Unfortunately. But the idea of giving land to people as a condition of their participation still strikes me as being the same as giving cars to those who haven't learned to drive.

It's a nice gift, but ultimately these people are not equipped with the knowledge to use this gift to the maximum of its potential. But selling the land would forfeit their vote, and so they would keep the land, not necessarily because they have any more desire to educate themselves on foreign policy, environmental issues or any other political topics, but simply because they don't want to lose their chance to vote for the smooth looking gentleman with the nice smile in the next election.

I may be off the mark somewhat, but I sense that much of the thought behind this idea is spurred on by poor turnouts in the last election, to which, personally, I'd respond by saying I think that had more to do with the standard of the politicians involved above any sort of political apathy, although I would agree that there is massive apathy regarding politics, certainly in this country and the U.S. I just don't think that this land scheme is the right way to "fix" the problem.

[sam i am]

Well yes, I own my own car. It's shit hot as well. Really. But purchasing it was a decision I took of my own free will, it wasn't given to me. Unfortunately. But the idea of giving land to people as a condition of their participation still strikes me as being the same as giving cars to those who haven't learned to drive.

It's a nice gift, but ultimately these people are not equipped with the knowledge to use this gift to the maximum of its potential. But selling the land would forfeit their vote, and so they would keep the land, not necessarily because they have any more desire to educate themselves on foreign policy, environmental issues or any other political topics, but simply because they don't want to lose their chance to vote for the smooth looking gentleman with the nice smile in the next election.

I may be off the mark somewhat, but I sense that much of the thought behind this idea is spurred on by poor turnouts in the last election, to which, personally, I'd respond by saying I think that had more to do with the standard of the politicians involved above any sort of political apathy, although I would agree that there is massive apathy regarding politics, certainly in this country and the U.S. I just don't think that this land scheme is the right way to "fix" the problem.

Ok, good. But, my point is not to increase turnout. My point in giving land to everyone up front was to forestall the cries of unfairness from the disenfranchised. If they voluntarily give it up after the fact, they've got no one to blame but themselves when decisions are made for them.

My goal was to de-emphasize the federal government to have more accountability at the state, county, and local level. I don't really care if people vote or not - I just want those that do to have a good REASON for voting.

[yeahwho]

Also, just because you state it will never happen doesn't mean it won't. I'm sure many like-minded people with your thought processes thought the same thing about the earth being flat and slavery and wars will end. Sorry you are not advanced enough to follow complex, ertswhile debatable points that DO have meaning. :(

That is one of the stupidest paragraphs I've ever read here. The whole population of earth thought the planet was flat....so....your point is? Those same thought processes in 2005 think your #1 reason to be conservative is null and void.

Your feeling sorry for me? I'm going to be OK sam i am, once the realization hits me that earth is spherical I'll also try and figure out how to debate a ertswhile and advanced theory of such complexity it destroys the whole structure of the USofA. It may take me awhile to get up to speed, because you see no matter how much I try, I see no decency in your idea and now consider you to merely be trolling. Snipe away.

[sam i am]

That is one of the stupidest paragraphs I've ever read here. The whole population of earth thought the planet was flat....so....your point is? Those same thought processes in 2005 think your #1 reason to be conservative is null and void.

Your feeling sorry for me? I'm going to be OK sam i am, once the realization hits me that earth is spherical I'll also try and figure out how to debate a ertswhile and advanced theory of such complexity it destroys the whole structure of the USofA. It may take me awhile to get up to speed, because you see no matter how much I try, I see no decency in your idea and now consider you to merely be trolling. Snipe away.

Nah. I actually like you too much. But, this was the way of the US from its founding until the Civil War, so I guess back then the Founding Fathers and our Presidents up to Lincoln were non-Americans, according to your logic?

Couldn't avoid the sarcastic tone beofre, but I do apologize if it put you off. I just feel like this is an idea who's time is coming and I'd like to have some allies to be on MY side, for once. A lone wolf is a lonely wolf. :(

[franscar]

Ok, good. But, my point is not to increase turnout. My point in giving land to everyone up front was to forestall the cries of unfairness from the disenfranchised. If they voluntarily give it up after the fact, they've got no one to blame but themselves when decisions are made for them.

My goal was to de-emphasize the federal government to have more accountability at the state, county, and local level. I don't really care if people vote or not - I just want those that do to have a good REASON for voting.

I think maybe I am being dense. Could you possibly give me a few examples of "good" reasons to vote, along with a few "bad" reasons to vote, and how they tie in with the idea of only allowing landholders to vote, and why they don't apply to the idea of giving everyone over a certain age the right to vote.

[Space]

Along with owning land the number of votes you get to place should be determined by how many slaves you own.
Minimum wagers count as slaves.

are they still going to come in thru the 13 original colonies from british traders?

[Documad]

But, this was the way of the US from its founding until the Civil War, so I guess back then the Founding Fathers and our Presidents up to Lincoln were non-Americans, according to your logic?

I just feel like this is an idea who's time is coming and I'd like to have some allies to be on MY side, for once.
Seems like you're saying it's an idea who's time expired in about 1861. It expired for good reason. I think this thread is a prank because no one could rationally argue that we should take away civil rights that so many people fought and/or died for. It's downright offensive.


And you've insulted my intelligence in a number of threads. I'm getting that it's not personal for you and that you just have an offensive style of talking down to people you disagree with. That's somewhat excusable coming from the teenage boys posting from their parents' basements, but I would expect more from someone who purports to be well-educated.

[Medellia]

Point d) just because nonlandowners have been allowed to vote for a long time doesn't make it right. Slavery was allowed for a long time and that doesn't make it right, either.
Non-landowners are people too. And I say this as a landowner.

[Medellia]

Yeah, he'll tell you you're great one day and then say you can't read English the next.

Someone needs to visit the bipolar thread.
Ace42 says: "In my non-landowner's opinion, non-landowner's opinions are not worth basing policy on."

[brewstercraven]

sam i am look at the troubles that arose in londonderry (thats in ireland) as a result of the exact same scheme.

the reason im takin the piss is bcos its one of the most stupid ideas ive eva heard and once one guy said it cut b a good idea 2 train reali hard then cut off our arms a compete in the paralimpics (i cant spell)

if ur bring it up purely for the means of debate at least hav a topic more plausible so people will add to the disscussion instead of takin the piss

[Humiliation]

This is a stupid point. Some people never manage to buy houses because they were brought up in the slums or got a poor education from a bad school or something.

[sam i am]

And you've insulted my intelligence in a number of threads. I'm getting that it's not personal for you and that you just have an offensive style of talking down to people you disagree with. That's somewhat excusable coming from the teenage boys posting from their parents' basements, but I would expect more from someone who purports to be well-educated.

I'm truly sorry, Documad, if you feel like I have "insulted [your] intelligence."

I would hope that you understand that I am one among a multitude in my beliefs. It forces a certain style upon me that I would prefer not to have to adopt, but if I want to be "heard" through the clutter of dissenting opinions (95% of which think that anyone who doesn't think the US is crap is stupid or a hosanna for the current administration), I have to stake out positions and employ verbal stylings that would not be part of my normal, everyday discourse.

Also, when you are "conversing" via text, it is quite easy to demonize those on the other side due to the fact that you never have to look anyone in the face or read body language, or, for that matter, really care.

I guess a big part of the difference between I and sisko, for example, is that I understand that at least we all have a somewhat common bond : we are BBoys fans, else we would not be on this board. I just hoped that we could all talk and vet ideas and have debates ina reasonable, cogent way, but I am also a defensive person when it comes to my credentials or ideals being called into question.

I know that Qdrop has explained this on other threads as well. Bottom line : I do respect you, Documad, BECAUSE you have kept coming back and have attempted to debate me or engage me in a fairly reasonable, cogent, principled manner. I think we got off on the wrong foot, but that could probably be said for many on this board.

I hope that my ongoing efforts to engage all of you has at least earned your respect, if not your agreement, and I look forward to continued, ongoing, spirited debate of whatever topics interest us all.

[sam i am]

Ace42 says: "In my non-landowner's opinion, non-landowner's opinions are not worth basing policy on."

Good point. Maybe I should just shut up so everyone else can agree and walk arm in arm off into blissful non-debate.

Nah.....just kidding.

[Medellia]

Good point. Maybe I should just shut up so everyone else can agree and walk arm in arm off into blissful non-debate.

Nah.....just kidding.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Even if I do agree with the sentiment.

[sam i am]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Even if I do agree with the sentiment.

Respect, Medellia.

Sorry you agree with the sentiment. :(

[Medellia]

Respect, Medellia.

Sorry you agree with the sentiment. :(
Aww, I didn't mean it like that. Sentiment maybe wasn't the best word to use. I meant I agree that's it's not such a great idea, even though I personally wouldn't be affected by it. You're an intelligent fellow, even though I don't agree with ya on a lot of issues. (y)

[sam i am]

Aww, I didn't mean it like that. Sentiment maybe wasn't the best word to use. I meant I agree that's it's not such a great idea, even though I personally wouldn't be affected by it. You're an intelligent fellow, even though I don't agree with ya on a lot of issues. (y)

Cool. Thanks for the clarification. I feel better. :)