If only landowners voted, would we have a welfare state?

[Ame®icano]

The Little Red Hen
In the tale, the little red hen finds a grain of wheat and asks for help from the other farmyard animals (most adaptations feature three animals, a pig, a cat, and a rat, duck, goose, dog, or goat[1]) to plant it, but they all disagree.

At each later stage (harvest, threshing, milling the wheat into flour, and baking the flour into bread), the hen again asks for help from the other animals, but again she doesn't receive any help.

Finally, the hen has completed her task and asks who will help her eat the bread. This time, all the previous non-participants eagerly volunteer, but she disagrees with them, stating that no one helped her with her work. Thus, the hen eats it with her chicks, leaving none for anyone else.

The moral of this story is that those who make no contribution to producing a product do not deserve to enjoy the product: "if any would not work, neither should he eat."[2]

Yes, but life is more complex than a farmyard. That's the problem we have right now. Our president is almost as intelligent as a little red hen, and thinks quick bumper sticker solutions will solve all our problems. He's an idiot.

Having problem understanding such simple concept as farmyard, speaks much about intelligence.

 

[Lewdog]

There are a lot of people that rent, and not just poor people. Tying voting to land ownership is plain silly.

I would tie the right to vote to not recieving checks of any kind from the government - that would include all government employees.

How about we tie it to only people that are animal lovers? Cat owners? People that are allergic to penicillin? Drive Fords?

 

[bendog]

There are a lot of people that rent, and not just poor people. Tying voting to land ownership is plain silly.

I would tie the right to vote to not recieving checks of any kind from the government - that would include all government employees.

How about we tie it to only people that are animal lovers? Cat owners? People that are allergic to penicillin? Drive Fords?

Washington should not have had the vote. LOL

 

[BulletProof]

There are a lot of people that rent, and not just poor people. Tying voting to land ownership is plain silly.

People who rent can much more easily pack their bags and leave, which is why land ownership is relevant. Renting itself is a demonstration of a lack of commitment to the place of residency. The people most stuck with the outcome should have the most say.

 

[Lewdog]

There are a lot of people that rent, and not just poor people. Tying voting to land ownership is plain silly.

People who rent can much more easily pack their bags and leave, which is why land ownership is relevant. Renting itself is a demonstration of a lack of commitment to the place of residency. The people most stuck with the outcome should have the most say.

That's absurd. If that were a rule then people would simply just buy a one foot by one foot piece of land to skirt the rules.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, but life is more complex than a farmyard. That's the problem we have right now. Our president is almost as intelligent as a little red hen, and thinks quick bumper sticker solutions will solve all our problems. He's an idiot.

Life is just as complex as someone wants to make it.
Expanding responsibilities beyond simplicity is what makes it complex ... That is the cause as much as an argument for doing so.

Moral of the Story:
If you set your pants on fire ... Don't bitch about it being hot.

.

When we have problems with inflamed pants, I'll revisit your advice. For now, real problems for real people seem to be most important. Silly nursery stories don't seem to be enough.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Little Red Hen
In the tale, the little red hen finds a grain of wheat and asks for help from the other farmyard animals (most adaptations feature three animals, a pig, a cat, and a rat, duck, goose, dog, or goat[1]) to plant it, but they all disagree.

At each later stage (harvest, threshing, milling the wheat into flour, and baking the flour into bread), the hen again asks for help from the other animals, but again she doesn't receive any help.

Finally, the hen has completed her task and asks who will help her eat the bread. This time, all the previous non-participants eagerly volunteer, but she disagrees with them, stating that no one helped her with her work. Thus, the hen eats it with her chicks, leaving none for anyone else.

The moral of this story is that those who make no contribution to producing a product do not deserve to enjoy the product: "if any would not work, neither should he eat."[2]

Yes, but life is more complex than a farmyard. That's the problem we have right now. Our president is almost as intelligent as a little red hen, and thinks quick bumper sticker solutions will solve all our problems. He's an idiot.

And you think Obamacare or single payer aren't bumper sticker solutions?

Of course not.

 

[BlackSand]

When we have problems with inflamed pants, I'll revisit your advice. For now, real problems for real people seem to be most important. Silly nursery stories don't seem to be enough.

Meh ... I am willing accept the simplicity of the wisdom escapes you ... I mean that is what you are bitching about ...

.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Little Red Hen
In the tale, the little red hen finds a grain of wheat and asks for help from the other farmyard animals (most adaptations feature three animals, a pig, a cat, and a rat, duck, goose, dog, or goat[1]) to plant it, but they all disagree.

At each later stage (harvest, threshing, milling the wheat into flour, and baking the flour into bread), the hen again asks for help from the other animals, but again she doesn't receive any help.

Finally, the hen has completed her task and asks who will help her eat the bread. This time, all the previous non-participants eagerly volunteer, but she disagrees with them, stating that no one helped her with her work. Thus, the hen eats it with her chicks, leaving none for anyone else.

The moral of this story is that those who make no contribution to producing a product do not deserve to enjoy the product: "if any would not work, neither should he eat."[2]

Yes, but life is more complex than a farmyard. That's the problem we have right now. Our president is almost as intelligent as a little red hen, and thinks quick bumper sticker solutions will solve all our problems. He's an idiot.

Having problem understanding such simple concept as farmyard, speaks much about intelligence.

Having problem understanding farmyard nursery stories are not a reasonable rout to running our country, speaks much about intelligence

 

[BulletProof]

That's absurd. If that were a rule then people would simply just buy a one foot by one foot piece of land to skirt the rules.

Obviously, if land ownership were the rule, it would include details, like the ownership had to by the place of residency, or be at least a quarter acre.

 

[TNHarley]

There are a lot of people that rent, and not just poor people. Tying voting to land ownership is plain silly.

I would tie the right to vote to not recieving checks of any kind from the government - that would include all government employees.

How about we tie it to only people that are animal lovers? Cat owners? People that are allergic to penicillin? Drive Fords?

Great comparison

 

[Lewdog]

That's absurd. If that were a rule then people would simply just buy a one foot by one foot piece of land to skirt the rules.

Obviously, if land ownership were the rule, it would include details, like the ownership had to by the place of residency, or be at least a quarter acre.

Who decides what is big enough for residency? Sounds to me like a rule that would cost a lot of extra money to enforce...

 

[Tehon]

Move to Saudi Arabia. Liberty is the concept that this Nation was founded on.

yep, liberty, not democracy. The two are not synonymous.

We have a republican form of government.

That's a meaningless distinction.

It's not meaningless. Republicanism was chosen over pure democracy for the express purpose of protecting your liberty. Checks and balances.

It seems you much prefer a monarchical form of government.

We abandoned a Republican form of government during the Civil War. The 17th Amendment cemented the change.

No we didn't. You're just making shit up. You vote for two Senators to represent your state at the federal level. That is Republicanism.

 

[OldLady]

This (the op) is a bad idea. Just like how many of you would agree to strip me of my right to vote because of my past.
Too much judging the book by the cover going on.

Is that your grandbaby, Gramps?
Cute lil fella.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are a lot of people that rent, and not just poor people. Tying voting to land ownership is plain silly.

I would tie the right to vote to not recieving checks of any kind from the government - that would include all government employees.

That would include the military, the police, firefighters, and,

that would include any private company and its employees who do government contract work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And you do understand that the American people got rid of slavery, just as they got rid of voting restrictions,

constitutionally...

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

Lincoln slaughtered no one to get rid of anything.

Of course he did. Who gave orders to the Union Army to invade Virginia?

We slaughtered a lot of Japanese and Germans too, years later. So it goes.

Germany and Japan were not part of the United States, douche bag. And no one questions the claim that FDR and Truman slaughtered plenty of Japs and Germans.

So you're arguing that the federal government has no rightful power to put down a domestic insurrection?

lol, good one.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No we didn't. Lincoln slaughtered 850,000 people to get rid of slavery.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery. Maybe you could sue your school for failing to educate you?

That's right.
It was purely about state's rights. Every right of a state except those pertaining to slavery.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This (the op) is a bad idea. Just like how many of you would agree to strip me of my right to vote because of my past.
Too much judging the book by the cover going on.

Is that your grandbaby, Gramps?
Cute lil fella.

Yes

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There are a lot of people that rent, and not just poor people. Tying voting to land ownership is plain silly.

I would tie the right to vote to not recieving checks of any kind from the government - that would include all government employees.

Even if they're land owners?
This is getting more cumbersome than the tax code.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There are a lot of people that rent, and not just poor people. Tying voting to land ownership is plain silly.

People who rent can much more easily pack their bags and leave, which is why land ownership is relevant. Renting itself is a demonstration of a lack of commitment to the place of residency. The people most stuck with the outcome should have the most say.

Yes, they'll just pack up and leave to go live in the woods.
What in the world does a commitment to their place of residency have to do with either their responsibility or their contribution to society?
There are tens of millions of people who rent their entire lives in urban areas and contribute greatly to society.