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

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Why is that such an important qualifier?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Civil War was ALL about slavery. Attempts to claim otherwise are ludicrous and sad, all at once.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why is that such an important qualifier?

Don't over-exert yourself trying to put a sensible context on this absurd thread..

 

[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.

The Civil War was ALL about slavery. Attempts to claim otherwise are ludicrous and sad, all at once.

I really don't get how slavery could be removed as the singular issue of the war.

 

[bendog]

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.

The Civil War was ALL about slavery. Attempts to claim otherwise are ludicrous and sad, all at once.

I really don't get how slavery could be removed as the singular issue of the war.

Well to get closer to the OP, if we had slavery we wouldn't have a welfare state. (-:

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Civil War was ALL about slavery. Attempts to claim otherwise are ludicrous and sad, all at once.

I really don't get how slavery could be removed as the singular issue of the war.

It was THE issue. Anyone who claims otherwise is either woefully ignorant of history, or they are making an incredibly lame attempt at some sort of sanitization of history.

 

[bendog]

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.

The Civil War was ALL about slavery. Attempts to claim otherwise are ludicrous and sad, all at once.

I really don't get how slavery could be removed as the singular issue of the war.

It was THE issue. Anyone who claims otherwise is either woefully ignorant of history, or they are making an incredibly lame attempt at some sort of sanitization of history.

It was, but interestingly/strangely it was not the primary reason for southern subsistence farmers or Irish immigrants to enlist. And both attempted to abstain themselves later in the conflict. But there's no question - no slavery = no war.

 

[OldLady]

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.

The Civil War was ALL about slavery. Attempts to claim otherwise are ludicrous and sad, all at once.

I really don't get how slavery could be removed as the singular issue of the war.

Well to get closer to the OP, if we had slavery we wouldn't have a welfare state. (-:

Oh yes we would. Lots of white folk on welfare. Is that what you meant?

 

[BulletProof]

I really don't get how slavery could be removed as the singular issue of the war.

Slavery was not at issue when the South went independent. Abraham Lincoln only injected slavery in the war as a propaganda tool. Read carefully the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[bendog]

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.

The Civil War was ALL about slavery. Attempts to claim otherwise are ludicrous and sad, all at once.

I really don't get how slavery could be removed as the singular issue of the war.

Well to get closer to the OP, if we had slavery we wouldn't have a welfare state. (-:

Oh yes we would. Lots of white folk on welfare. Is that what you meant?

I was commenting on the absurdity of the OP.

 

[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.

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

The concept is much more reasonable than one you're routing for: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

 

[MisterBeale]

The 1890s were America's high point.

Before the elites shackled the nation with compulsory public education. Before then, if you didn't send your kid to school, you didn't get into trouble, it was only offered, it was a choice. Now, it is the law.

One hundred years later, they are now doing the same thing to health care.

Eventually, they will do the same thing to your housing, and to your employment.

Get a clue

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED119389.pdf

Christ, that whole document supports what I was saying, by and large, the majority of America resisted attempts to mandate compulsory education until the turn of the 20th century. I have a clue, don't try to rewrite history to your own liking.

Just because some puritans and liberal bureaucrats have some utopian dreams of state control, doesn't mean that freedom was always doomed. Only when the corporatists and socialists money got involved did it become so.

So will it be with other aspects of free peoples lives.

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

That comparison could work in your social studies, or transgender poetry class.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

No it isn't.

People already had representation in their congressman. Senators were intended to represent the states.

Today, states have no representation in Washington.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I really don't get how slavery could be removed as the singular issue of the war.

Slavery was not at issue when the South went independent. Abraham Lincoln only injected slavery in the war as a propaganda tool. Read carefully the Emancipation Proclamation.

Not true in any way.

You have some reading to do.
Start with these topics.

The Missouri compromise
The Wilmot proviso
The compromise of 1850 and "popular sovereignty"
The fugitive slave act and the abolitionist movement

 

[NYcarbineer]

I really don't get how slavery could be removed as the singular issue of the war.

Slavery was not at issue when the South went independent. Abraham Lincoln only injected slavery in the war as a propaganda tool. Read carefully the Emancipation Proclamation.

Nonsense. Secession was precipitated by a whole set of events connected to the slavery issue. One was the election of Lincoln,

who the Southern slave interests believed was going to be a tool of the northern abolitionists and their agenda.

There was also a panic in the South created by John Brown's raid over the fear of widespread slave rebellions which had been Brown's intent.

And history goes on. Go read it.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Its a good question and the whole situation needs to be looked at. You have just elected a piece of shit to be President, something needs to change.

How dare you insult our President and Commander in Chief.

That's a right solely reserved for US.

 

[Tehon]

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.

No it isn't.

People already had representation in their congressman. Senators were intended to represent the states.

Today, states have no representation in Washington.

It's representative government regardless. Republicanism.

 

[Lewdog]

How about we have a written test to qualify to vote? Ask simple questions about politics and American history... that would throw 75%+ of Trump voters off of the rolls.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we simply charged each person, say, $100 to vote,

would that satisfy you conservatives?