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

[BlackSand]

The UCMJ doesn't have anything to do with voting. It is actually a separate set of rules for the military, because they operate a lot different than civilians do. I know, I was in the Navy for over 20 years.

Of course it doesn't ... I gave an example of how an exception is made in regards to military service.
There is no reason an exception cannot be made for the military in the other direction ... Should that be a need.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

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

A. Nope, we would have a plutocracy, an oligarchy of white men in power and a class system with women and former slaves left uneducated, denied the right to vote, and doing the work the elites won't do.

Now that Trump is in charge we might very well be going in the direction of a dystopian nation.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The UCMJ doesn't have anything to do with voting. It is actually a separate set of rules for the military, because they operate a lot different than civilians do. I know, I was in the Navy for over 20 years.

Of course it doesn't ... I gave an example of how an exception is made in regards to military service.
There is no reason an exception cannot be made for the military in the other direction ... Should that be a need.

.

Apples and spark plugs dude....................the UCMJ has nothing to do with voting rights.

 

[TNHarley]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

Stupid premise.
That would be taxation without representation.

that was only a SLOGAN

It's true slogan or not.
Your plan goes against the founding principles of this country. Any other rights you'd like to strip away from those you feel don't quite measure up?

Guess thats why states could set their own standards?
YOUR premise is stupid.
Also, most states would let non land owners vote if they paid a tax.

What does this even mean?

States can't set standards for a national election.

This is 2017 not 1790....
"in the beginning" states could do what they wanted. Some states wouldnt even let catholics and jews vote.

 

[TNHarley]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

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

A. Nope, we would have a plutocracy, an oligarchy of white men in power and a class system with women and former slaves left uneducated, denied the right to vote, and doing the work the elites won't do.

Now that Trump is in charge we might very well be going in the direction of a dystopian nation.

 

[OldLady]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

Of all the things we spend money on in this country, including half of all our money going to the military, why are you so all fired concerned about keeping kids from starving or people from living in cardboard boxes on the street like they do in India? Why is that such a big concern to you Harley? Take away people's right to have a say in their government because they aren't rich enough to own property? Is there nothing else the government does except spend a sliver of its income on food stamps and low income housing? It's not generous and it isn't even enough to meet the demand, so that should make you feel good at least.

Good lord old lady!! Did you leave any straw for halloween?
Also, I clearly stated i didnt want to take that right from people. I wish they didnt have it in the first place

Why? There was no welfare then, so why are you now tying it to welfare?
Two questions. Answer them both, please.

 

[TNHarley]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

Of all the things we spend money on in this country, including half of all our money going to the military, why are you so all fired concerned about keeping kids from starving or people from living in cardboard boxes on the street like they do in India? Why is that such a big concern to you Harley? Take away people's right to have a say in their government because they aren't rich enough to own property? Is there nothing else the government does except spend a sliver of its income on food stamps and low income housing? It's not generous and it isn't even enough to meet the demand, so that should make you feel good at least.

Good lord old lady!! Did you leave any straw for halloween?
Also, I clearly stated i didnt want to take that right from people. I wish they didnt have it in the first place

Why? There was no welfare then, so why are you now tying it to welfare?
Two questions. Answer them both, please.

Why?... Have you not read this thread? Did you not see me post the story of the little red hen?
I was tying it to welfare because people with something to lose, probably wouldnt vote their hard earned money away to trailer trash and ghetto dwellers that wont work.

 

[TNHarley]

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]

Here OldLady

 

[BlackSand]

Apples and spark plugs dude....................the UCMJ has nothing to do with voting rights.

You did entertain the idea it would not allow military service members to vote.
I simply pointed out where they already have exceptions that don't apply to the civilian population.

If you need to contort you argument to meet an unnecessary standard ... You can call it a peach for all I care ...

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Stupid premise.
That would be taxation without representation.

that was only a SLOGAN

It's true slogan or not.
Your plan goes against the founding principles of this country. Any other rights you'd like to strip away from those you feel don't quite measure up?

Guess thats why states could set their own standards?
YOUR premise is stupid.
Also, most states would let non land owners vote if they paid a tax.

What does this even mean?

States can't set standards for a national election.

This is 2017 not 1790....
"in the beginning" states could do what they wanted. Some states wouldnt even let catholics and jews vote.

This is 2017 not 1790...

Exactly.

 

[Seawytch]

Everyone pays taxes. Every citizen has “skin in the game.”

 

[ABikerSailor]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

Of all the things we spend money on in this country, including half of all our money going to the military, why are you so all fired concerned about keeping kids from starving or people from living in cardboard boxes on the street like they do in India? Why is that such a big concern to you Harley? Take away people's right to have a say in their government because they aren't rich enough to own property? Is there nothing else the government does except spend a sliver of its income on food stamps and low income housing? It's not generous and it isn't even enough to meet the demand, so that should make you feel good at least.

Good lord old lady!! Did you leave any straw for halloween?
Also, I clearly stated i didnt want to take that right from people. I wish they didnt have it in the first place

Why? There was no welfare then, so why are you now tying it to welfare?
Two questions. Answer them both, please.

Why?... Have you not read this thread? Did you not see me post the story of the little red hen?
I was tying it to welfare because people with something to lose, probably wouldnt vote their hard earned money away to trailer trash and ghetto dwellers that wont work.

So, you're saying that we should run the government like a children's story? You really ARE a Trump supporter.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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]

Here OldLady

That's a childs book meant to teach a lesson to children. It's not a blueprint for civilization.

 

[The Original Tree]

Probably Not

But if we did, I believe it would be very limited, and actually have something like time limits and limits on the number of times you can be a fucking couch potatoe, flea, bloodsucking low life sponge.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Apples and spark plugs dude....................the UCMJ has nothing to do with voting rights.

You did entertain the idea it would not allow military service members to vote.
I simply pointed out where they already have exceptions that don't apply to the civilian population.

If you need to contort you argument to meet an unnecessary standard ... You can call it a peach for all I care ...

.

Never said anything about the UCMJ, you were the one to bring it up.

The OP had originally stated that maybe only land owners should be allowed to vote. I showed them where that would leave out most of the military, because military members don't buy houses or own much land until they are in the upper ranks and are getting close to retirement, because of duty station changes.

Military people as a rule don't buy, they rent because of their nomadic lifestyle of moving from place to place every 3 to 4 years.

I said it was because they move so much that they wouldn't be allowed to move, not because of the UCMJ.

 

[TNHarley]

that was only a SLOGAN

It's true slogan or not.
Your plan goes against the founding principles of this country. Any other rights you'd like to strip away from those you feel don't quite measure up?

Guess thats why states could set their own standards?
YOUR premise is stupid.
Also, most states would let non land owners vote if they paid a tax.

What does this even mean?

States can't set standards for a national election.

This is 2017 not 1790....
"in the beginning" states could do what they wanted. Some states wouldnt even let catholics and jews vote.

This is 2017 not 1790...

Exactly.

you are a sharp one, buddy

 

[TNHarley]

Everyone pays taxes. Every citizen has “skin in the game.”

sales tax LOL ok
Such a lame argument.
Not to mention, that sales tax is paid for with tax dollars

 

[TNHarley]

I dont think we would. At least, not much of one.
Weak people vote for policies for the weak because they have no skin in the game. Doesnt that make sense?
Im not saying i want to go back to just land owners voting. Im just saying we should have kept it that way

Of all the things we spend money on in this country, including half of all our money going to the military, why are you so all fired concerned about keeping kids from starving or people from living in cardboard boxes on the street like they do in India? Why is that such a big concern to you Harley? Take away people's right to have a say in their government because they aren't rich enough to own property? Is there nothing else the government does except spend a sliver of its income on food stamps and low income housing? It's not generous and it isn't even enough to meet the demand, so that should make you feel good at least.

Good lord old lady!! Did you leave any straw for halloween?
Also, I clearly stated i didnt want to take that right from people. I wish they didnt have it in the first place

Why? There was no welfare then, so why are you now tying it to welfare?
Two questions. Answer them both, please.

Why?... Have you not read this thread? Did you not see me post the story of the little red hen?
I was tying it to welfare because people with something to lose, probably wouldnt vote their hard earned money away to trailer trash and ghetto dwellers that wont work.

So, you're saying that we should run the government like a children's story? You really ARE a Trump supporter.

I dont support trump. Way to "paint with such a broad brush"

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

In today time you pay taxes in many ways from land to sales, so most have skin in the game including the poor drunk that drink his or her wild Irish Rose under the bridge.

What should change is there should be no political parties and you just vote for the crooked idiot that you believe that lies the best...

 

[TNHarley]

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]

Here OldLady

That's a childs book meant to teach a lesson to children. It's not a blueprint for civilization.

Yes, teaching children. Apparently, not for adults though..
It was to get a point across, you morons. "if any would not work, neither should he eat."