countrygrl
King
Except they didn't erect any barriers restrict entry into that select group. The vast majority of them were extremely active in opening up that group to as many people as possible. So again, you have no point.
Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting
- Thread starter .Shane.
- Start date
Except they didn't erect any barriers restrict entry into that select group. The vast majority of them were extremely active in opening up that group to as many people as possible. So again, you have no point.
When a group is excluded from political participation, restrictions on their rights and freedoms always follows.
Really? Isn't restricting one from a vote a barrier? Do you think they were eager for the average slave to acquire property? How about women? Read through the first 10 or so volumes of the U.S. Reports (Supreme Court Reporters) and you will see that the propertry owning class at the time was not so much different than the industrialists of the late 19th century or the Steve Forbes and Sons of Sam (Walton) today.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
JollyRoger, have you ever been erected by a group?
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
What a tool...there are plenty of renters out there who pay through the nose at tax time.
I have been erected enough that it presented a barrier to entry in select cases.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
People who rent still pay taxes. If you want to remove their right to vote also remove their taxes.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
Actually, scratch the plan to RL troll by making a bill with so many provisions and exceptions it doesn't change anything. Just make it so anybody who pays taxes and therefore strengthens this nation can vote. Easy.
Of course, I'll happily forfeit my right to vote until I'm older if it means I get to pay no taxes.
Of course, I'll happily forfeit my right to vote until I'm older if it means I get to pay no taxes.
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
I'd take that deal right now. There aren't a lot of competitive elections around here.
I'd start paying taxes again in 2013 so I can re-register for the sole purpose of voting against Thad Cochran in the primary.
Sure. Other than not allowing people to vote or own property. As long as you were not a woman or a slave or a non-christian male of European descent, you were fine and dandy.
countrygrl
King
countrygrl
King
Many of the founding fathers were eager for slave populations to acquire property. Most states implemented laws that granted citizenship and property to slaves that helped to fight in the Revolutionary War. Many powerful leaders from the south wrote extensively that not abolishing slavery would be the demise of the southern states.
Like I said, if what you were saying was accurate than this class would have summarily declared that only THEY were able to own property. They wouldn't have eagerly instituted policies to sell land to others. They wouldn't have encouraged people to move westward to acquire their own property. They would have simply monopolized it for their own property. Jefferson would not have obsessed for years following the revolution trying to open up education to the masses, he would have restricted it.
Nice conspiracy theory, but it isn't accurate at all.
Except it didn't!
Oh, really. When blacks couldn't vote, did they have equal rights and opportunities? When women couldn't vote, did they have equal rights and opportunities?
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
So you approve of renters having the vote if they help to fight in a war?
countrygrl
King
That's not what you said. You said this:
When a group is excluded from political participation, restrictions on their rights and freedoms always follows.
People weren't restricted from owning property. Property was not monopolized by the ruling class. And political participation has gradually been eased as our country has moved forward. It hasn't been ruled by an ever strengthening iron fist that progressively acted to restrict rights and freedoms of the people.
Your point does not contradict anything I said.
countrygrl
King
Yes it does. The only right that they had restricted was the right to vote. And they still had the opportunity to own property and become a voter. So where was the additional restriction of their rights and freedoms?
